on October 24, 2012
151. Website Submission at 9:19 AM
LUD
Why is a 'new' Peel plan in the works? Is it because YTG does not agree with the previous plans and extensive consultation done by the Peel Planning Commission? Quite wasting our time and money and accept the existing Peel Plan!
152. Website Submission at 9:35 AM
Concept A
I like the way the different zones of IMA should allow for flexibility and discretion in managing useage. I don't think enough area has been designated IMA, as I am concerned RUWA areas will be difficult for resource extraction firms to access.
Concept B
I don't have enough geographical comprehension of the area to comment specifically between proposed concepts except that on the whole, I think 74% might be a bit high for PA, RUWA, and RUWA Corridor designations unless YESAB et al are to be forthcoming with permits and approvals in those areas.
RUWA
I like the idea of tools for managing intensity and types of useage. I hope that mineral exploration companies are not bogged down by too much red tape or discouraged from investing in the region and the Yukon by prohibitive requirements in the RUWAs.
LUD
Maybe we should have a greater percentage designated IMA. We need the mining sector's continued economic contribution in the Yukon and hopefully some future oil and gas contribution.
153. Website Submission at 10:10 AM
Final Recommended Plan
These are the agreed designations of the Final Recommended Plan - the Yukon Government should have further engaged with this process if it wanted to add its opinion rather than rejecting it entirely and coming up with its own behind closed doors.
Concept A
These concepts have not been developed by the legally mandated planning commission and do not reflect the wishes of Yukoners. They are not democratic. You have not right to ask us to consult on them. The Yukon Government should accept the designations of the Final Recommended Plan
Concept B
Where was the public consultation in developing these concepts? This is not a democratic process - the Peel Watershed Planning Commission represented the wishes of all Yukoners - do not ignore it.
Concept C
These concepts all allow too much industrial scale development - none of them fit with the recommendations of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission - you have no right to suggest alternate designations - the legally mandated process was to engage with the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
There are no differences between your concepts - i reject all of them. Accept the recommendations of the Final Plan
Summary
The Yukon Government has behaved appallingly with its treatment of the Final Recommended Plan - ignoring the process, and pretending that it didn't represent the majority of interests - it does. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you can't reject a legally mandated and representative process. Accept the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
These suggestions have not been developed through the mandated process of land planning, they are not democratic, nor are they balanced and fair. The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's final recommended plan represents the will of the majority of people and stakeholders. In creating these new land use designations you insult the entire consultation process.
LUD
Accept the land use designations that were democratically and legally agreed upon in the Final Recommended Plan. Do not continue to develop plans for the Peel Watershed behind closed doors without due legal and public process.
on October 25, 2012
154. Website Submission at 12:08 PM
Summary
Its all too confusing. Muddle it all up and then kick em in the balls. Thanks, [vulgar language removed]
155. Website Submission at 1:34 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept A
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept B
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept C
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept D
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
RUWA
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
LUD
Don't rewrite the existing Peel Land Use Plan. Follow the recommendations made by the Peel Planning Committee.
156. Website Submission at 4:10 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Wow, I don't know what to say, except that your overlay of 'ecological & conservation values' is clearly designed with no macro vision; economic or ecological. It's all valuable, dooffus!
And why is the Hart river left prone?
Concept A
Wow. Suck the life from all of us and leave a ruined carcass of a planet.
Concept B
Isn't this the same as the last one?
Concept C
Okay, so you add a tiny bit more green area each time. Very clever. not
Concept D
The Peel Commission's final plan is fair, just, and democratic. Do it.
RUWA
The new land use designations are a shallow mockery of the process.
LUD
Give it up and do what the Peel Process has determined is best for all Yukoners.
157. Website Submission at 7:56 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This, the Final Recommended Plan of the 6 year, $6 million process, is the plan YG should accept. It was done in public, with input from all sectors, over a long time, and not behind closed doors over 2 months time.
Concept A
This concept A should be rejected, and the Final Recommended Plan of the 6 year, $6 million process, is the plan YG should accept. It was done in public, with input from all sectors, over a long time, and not behind closed doors over 2 months time.
Concept B
This concept B should be rejected, and the Final Recommended Plan of the 6 year, $6 million process, is the plan YG should accept. It was done in public, with input from all sectors, over a long time, and not behind closed doors over 2 months time.
Concept C
This concept C should be rejected, and the Final Recommended Plan of the 6 year, $6 million process, is the plan YG should accept. It was done in public, with input from all sectors, over a long time, and not behind closed doors over 2 months time.
Concept D
This concept D should be rejected, and the Final Recommended Plan of the 6 year, $6 million process, is the plan YG should accept. It was done in public, with input from all sectors, over a long time, and not behind closed doors over 2 months time.
Summary
The 6 year 6 million Peel Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan should be followed in its entirety. There is/was no need for the extra work, after all the work done by the Peel Planning Commission. It seems a waste of time and money, not to mention the insult to participants over the 6 years of its work. It was a compromise as the First Nations in the area and many other Yukoners would like to see 100 percent of the area protected, and instead see only 80% protected. The current false majority Yukon Government did not get a mandate to change this Peel River Commission Final Recommended Plan, as it did not state on it's election platform where it stood on this issue. And it was not because they weren't repeatedly asked where they stood! The time has come for Yukoners to be heard, in my opinion, they have spoken loud and clear.
Thank you.
on October 26, 2012
158. Website Submission at 9:17 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support this concept
Concept A
No aspects concern me.
Summary
I support the government's decision for the Peel Watershed
RUWA
I support these decisions.
on October 27, 2012
159. Website Submission at 11:24 PM
RUWA
The Peel Watershed should be forever protected from any non-renewable resource development and any actions or activities which typically support it like roads or airstrips.
LUD
The Peel Watershed should be forever protected from any non-renewable resource development and any actions or activities which typically support it like roads or airstrips.
on October 29, 2012
160. Website Submission at 2:30 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Stick to the original plan created by the Land Use Planning Commission. Stop wasting tax payer money and stop eroding faith in the democratic process. Do what you were elected to do -- represent the majority who support the original land use plan.
Summary
Listen to those who elected you. You don't need to "verify" my email address.
161. Website Submission at 9:47 PM
Summary
Really disappointed in this.
RUWA
I am seriously disappointed in this. Why did the Yukon government not pay attention to the land-use planning process and inject their ideas into the process then? Having to come up with something well after the fact is a waste of taxpayer time and money. This also is clearly designed to confuse the issue. Interesting use of colours.
on October 31, 2012
162. Website Submission at 12:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I understand the goverment wants development and of course money but at this cost, it is way to high. Financially we should be protecting this limited resource until a later time when it will be worth much more. We can't kid ourselves and think that the "protected areas" will actually be protected. If you allow any minning , road, etc. in 10 years the whole thing will be lost.
Concept A
I am absolutly against any minning in this area. The water will end up polluted and we will be killing our future generations.
Concept B
None of theses concepts appeal to me. We need to protect the whole area.
Concept C
Make all the area's protected parks .......... that would appeal to me greatly!
Concept D
all the wet lands and water sources HAVE to be absolutly off limits for any kind of minning, roads, construction and the rest should be protected as well.
Summary
Very disapointed that my government can't see the future value in protecting the peel.
RUWA
Make it a protected park and don't allow any minning of any kind in the area. I have spent much of my life in minning area's and I have only seen destruction of the land and the surrounding area's.
LUD
Make the proposed land use designations non existant. This will protect the area. If you allow any roads, construction of any kind and minning in the area it will be destroyed and lost. We should be holding on to our limited mining resources as long as we can.
163. Website Submission at 2:46 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am adding my comments to the preamable and comments provided on the EMR website re the "Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Consultation.
"The Government of Yukon has been clear in expressing its concerns throughout the planning process." Not true
"Government also outlined its five main concerns to the Planning Commission" When?
"However, the Final Recommended Plan does not address government’s concerns surrounding access and balance."
No, it addressed the concerns of a vast majority of Yukoners through an extensive planning process.
"The government also realized that the land use designations proposed in the Final Recommended Plan are polarized and focus on either end of the spectrum. There is nothing in the middle to address multiple users of an area. "
Just exactly what is a “multiple user”? Wilderness is wilderness. It is incompatible with resource extraction, by definition. They need to be separated, not “integrated”.
"The Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) designation not only builds on the designations found in the North Yukon Land Use Plan but also provides more detail and clarity to manage land use."
The North Yukon Land Use Plan is not a suitable template to use in the Peel Region, for a fundamental reason. In the North Yukon there is already an extensive area set aside as wilderness.
'The new Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) designation proposes to manage the land uses and resources using a combination of tools such as: allowing temporary and controlled access to the area or coordinating and planning use of the area to avoid conflict.
Also, the new RUWA designation allows for subzones to be identified. These sub-zones can allow for greater management or restrictions focused on protecting a specific value or resource."
So, I’m assuming that “temporary and controlled access” means roads. Temporary roads are an illusion or delusion- with perhaps the exception of a winter road. Roads destroy wilderness.
Likewise, “coordinating and planning use of the area to avoid conflict” does not really apply to wilderness. “Managing land use and resources” in wilderness is an oxymoron, if that implies resource extraction.
"Intensive active management of the area could include protecting the corridor’s viewscape by applying specific limitations on activities such as restricting visual obstructions and noise levels."
No “intensive active management” is appropriate in the river corridors, other than prohibition of mining activity. Where that is not possible, in other words, where mining claims already have been awarded, no surface access should be permitted.
"The concepts were created to stimulate a discussion about how we can expand our land use management tools to actively and effectively manage multiple uses in the region."
Government doesn’t need “new tools”. It is focused on needing to “actively and effectively manage multiple uses”. Fact is, multiple use management of an area that ought to be primarily wilderness is wrong-headed.
"The proposed new land use designation system aims to provide a balance between actively managing various land uses while providing significant protection for existing values in an area. "
That may be the stated aim, but the aim is off the mark.
"Overall, the Government of Yukon supports and accepts the goals and many of the recommendations presented in the Final Recommended Plan."
Please be specific. Which goals? Which recommendations?
"However, we believe the proposed new land use designations better reflect our expectations for a balanced plan that addresses the diversity of needs and issues in the Peel Watershed Region."
Just who is “our”? I believe that the Planning Commission has done a much better job in addressing the diversity of needs and issues. None of the provided four scenarios comes close to establishing a fair and balanced future for the Peel. None comes close to the quality of work achieved by the planning commission.
"The Government of Yukon is proposing a new land use designation system that includes a new tool which proposes to actively manage multiple uses while protecting the values identified in the area."
This “new tool” reminds me of a “sky hook”, in other words, an illusion.
There is no scheduled date for the completion of the regional land use planning process.
Thus, will there be a moratorium on mineral staking pending completion of the plan?
Concept A
Done
Concept B
Done
Concept C
Done
Concept D
See earlier comments.
Summary
Please don't treat Yukoner's this way. Please show respect for the 6 years of research and consultation done by the planning commission.
I note that you reserve the right not to post any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libellous, defamatory, vulgar or indecent views or information of any kind.
Also please inform me which, if any of my comments are deemed to be inappropriate for posting. Thank you.
RUWA
I think the concept is fundamentally daft-a moronic oxymoron. Roads and wilderness areas mix like oil and water-they don't.
LUD
The idea that this is a "modification" of the Commission's final plan is an illusion. It is ignoring the fundamental principles outlined in that plan.
164. Website Submission at 8:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
SMA- Ther term Special Managment Area is confusing - will become a legally protected area, once management plans are done... that means I cannot really comment, as I truly do not know what this means. Does this mean, no roads? If so, I support that aspect of it.
This website is a confusing, what is the point of Concept A, B, C, D. I do not have hours to study the original recommendation, then compare it to this version to see what changes have been made.
Concept A
No comments
Concept B
No comments
Concept C
Insufficient protection
Concept D
no comments
Summary
I think that the government should have honoured the recommendations of the Peel Planning commission. This process now seems like a waste of taxpayers time and money. I am also feeling manipulated, as I do not have the time to review all the documents in great detail, and provide concise, professional comments.
This whole concept, including the design of the website should be re-visited. The presentation of the terms and concepts is a bit confusing, and what you are actually asking us to comment on, in these tiny little boxes, where it is difficult to read, and/or edit our comments is difficult.
You should also make it very clear that we must provide our name, email and other information, which is subject to be revealed through various Acts prior to us wasting our time filling in these little boxes. How does this affect YTG employees who may not share the views of their employer. Will there be consequences. Hard to say, but it sure makes me think twice about sharing my opinions through this forum. Overall, this whole process is very disappointing.
I think the setup of this website and consultation process may be designed to deter the general public, especially those who are not in support of mining activities in the Peel watershed, and who are not paid to provide input. It is not easy to participate when literally our comments are boxed in like this.
This really makes it difficult to get good feedback. Are there other mechanisms to provide feedback besides making a phone cal? It is hard to tell from the ad in the paper. Will there be an open house?
I support the process and the original recommendations of Peel WatershedPlanning commission in principal, and I believe that YG should do the same and honour this plan which took so much time and energy.
Below it states that you will carefully compile all comments (I cannot even print off a copy of these comments to see if you editted them or not).
The point, is though, so then what after that?
RUWA
This type of zoning doesn't work. No one area can possibly achieve all these goals effectively. It seems like there is an attempt to fool people into thinking that it is wilderness, when indeed this designation is not really wilderness based on your definition. I think the terms are misleading.
It is mandatory that there must be areas that are fully protected from development, exploration and any kind of resource development and road access.
LUD
The Wilderness River Corridor land designation is not well defined. Active management within a wilderness corridor - the term itself sounds like an oxymoron. It seems like it is open for mining and resource extraction with minor emphasis on maintaining some "wilderness characteristics". This particular term "wilderness characteristics" is way too vague to know what is meant by that. There is nothing here to really comment on. Other than you should stick with the original recommendations of the Peel Planning commission. I feel like you are wasting time, and losing the people's trust. And it seems as if you are trying to fool people into believing something that may not be true by playing with words. This deeply disappoints me.
on November 1, 2012
165. Website Submission at 5:11 PM
RUWA
What is wrong with you? You have an agreement that was signed and agreed too. Why do you want to go against the public and the Native groups? Are you that dumb? Agree to the July 2011 Peel Watershed Planning Commission's report and get on with being the Government of the people not the Government that doesn't care about the people.
166. Website Submission at 10:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This looks like a reasonable compromise and if this is the Final recommended plan then stick with it.
Concept A
Will not even comment on this rubbish...
Concept B
Will not even comment on this rubbish...
Concept C
Will not even comment on this rubbish...
Concept D
Will not even comment on this rubbish...
Summary
WE will NOT Stand for this!!!!
RUWA
By sticking with the original Peel Watershed Land use plan and not changing it to to accommodate the greedy pockets of a few. Take these decision making processes out of the hands of short sighted individuals.
LUD
Sticking with the original Peel Watershed Land use plan that took years and countless amounts of money to develop.
on November 2, 2012
167. Website Submission at 2:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I want this one! This is the plan that followed the right process!
Concept A
It concerns me that the government came up with a new plan behind closed doors after all the work that went into the first one!
Concept B
Nothing appeals to me about this plan! Everything concerns me about it!
Concept C
Nothing appeals to me about this plan! Everything concerns me about it!
Concept D
Nothing appeals to me about this plan! Everything concerns me about it!
RUWA
Go with the original plan that the commission and the FN agreed to!
LUD
Yes use the original 80% protected plan!
on November 3, 2012
168. Website Submission at 10:39 AM
Final Recommended Plan
resourse values overlap the protected area. There has to be reasonable access for resourse development
Concept A
better fits the needs of all Yukoners
Summary
The new designations allow for a much more balanced approach to land use in the area
169. Website Submission at 4:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Why would you have a commission of experts work on a balanced land use plan for years only to decline their recommendations.
The final recommended plan is what it is: final
170. Website Submission at 7:16 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan based on years of an exhaustive consultation process with Yukoners and with the acceptance of Yukon First Nations should be the plan adopted. Anything else would make that process seem pointless, and essentially negates the whole democratic process. That the government can come up with a variety of new 'concepts' and land use designations is a waste of taxpayer money and bureaucratic time - when there are many more issues that deserve thier time and my money (health care, housing, education). Accept the Recommended Plan as the will of the Yukon people.
Concept A
Nothing in this concept is appealing.
Of concern is the lack of regard for the Recommended Plan -- which is the one that should be implemented.
Concept B
Nothing in this concept is appealing.
Of concern is the lack of regard for the Recommended Plan -- which is the one that should be implemented.
Concept C
Nothing in this concept is appealing.
Of concern is the lack of regard for the Recommended Plan -- which is the one that should be implemented.
Concept D
Nothing in this concept is appealing.
Of concern is the lack of regard for the Recommended Plan -- which is the one that should be implemented.
on November 4, 2012
171. Website Submission at 3:59 PM
LUD
To Whom it may concern,
Where is the map that compares these new proposals with what the planning committee originally submitted - I am confused.
Did I miss a consultation process on these new planning concepts? Where are these ideas coming from?
How do these ideas compare with the ones proposed by the peel regional land use planning commission?
Thanks in advance for your response.
[name protected under ATIPP Act]
172. Website Submission at 6:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Throw this out, this is not good for the Yukon.
Concept A
I like the fact it allows mining, and mine access, but protects the rivers.
Concept B
This is almost the same as A but more mining is better.
Concept C
This concept has no right to be in the mix, mining is what made this territory and mining is what is making this territory grow.
Concept D
This concept has no right to be in the mix, mining is what made this territory and mining is what is making this territory grow.
on November 5, 2012
173. Website Submission at 10:42 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The aspects around the amount of landbase that allows roads concerns me greatly. Nothing in this new plan appeals to me as the Yukon Government has turned away from a solid democratic process that has taken us to this point.
Ideally I'd like another open box that looks at the whole process, that would provide more room for feedback. Instead I have added my overall, and well thought through comments below (as I see no other area on this website).
I understand the Yukon Government is asking for my feedback at this final consultation stage of the Peel Land Use Plan. I believe the process that has taken place for the past 6 ½ years has been an exemplary way to create a plan. It has involved multiple communities, listened to a diverse range of voices and found a compromise to create a balanced plan. Due to the range of voices that have had input to this plan, it should be held up as a model for future land use plans and as a way of engaging multiple communities and voices. I credit the Yukon Government for creating the means to listen to the people of the Yukon and ensure their views are reflected in the plan that was completed last year.
The current Yukon Government new maps and the associated names with each of the colours appear deceiving and create a complexity that is unnecessary. There is a suggestion from the Minister of Resources that the new maps are “more fair and balanced”. However, I don’t’ understand that this is possible as it was created by a few (in YG) to determine the land use, while a myriad of voices from around the territory came together to come out with what they thought was “fair and balanced”. I must ask the Premier to respond to my feedback about how he believes those in the Yukon Government that have been working on these new maps and this new proposal can realistically come up with something better and more balanced than what multiple communities came up with over many years? Since you have asked for my feedback, I respectfully ask you to answer my question.
• I understand the current Land Use Plan allows for protection of multiple wild rivers that will ensure wilderness tourism use for centuries to come. The Yukon currently has a portion of one of the largest UNESCO World Heritage Sites within its borders (Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek). A visionary approach to the Yukon’s future would be to embrace the potential of protected space like this, what it offers on the international stage, and look at other areas of the Yukon that have the potential to rival this splendour. The Yukon can place itself on the international stage as an ecotourism destination over a resource extraction one. I suggest a future of the Peel Watershed would be to be able to work the land sustainably (with cultural communities living off the land as they have done for millennia) and seek UNESCO World Heritage Status for the land base over the next decade.
• I understand that current claims on the land in this area will be upheld and that as long as no roads are built, the sites can still be worked. This speaks to a fair compromise that helps ensure those with historical interests still have a right to the area they had a right to in the past.
• I understand that 20% is devoted to new oil and gas claims. As the Yukon already has a thriving mineral exploration, oil and gas industry, an additional 20% of land to explore in offers a significant increase for future prosperity.
• I understand that current cultural pursuits will be able to be maintained such as game outfitting, and trapping. I agree with this as long as it is done for sustenance not as a recreational sport.
• I understand the land is home to three caribou herds, including the Hart River heard which is a vulnerable herd. I suggest the Yukon Government prioritize their land use management plans to ensure these herds stay healthy in the future. The herds already will be dealing with climate change effects that will create much stress on them.
• Finally, I suggest the current government work better with First Nations governments and peoples in the Yukon. Better communication is needed from the YG. This can be accomplished by:
o listening better to those that speak out, be more open to different points of view, be less contentious in dealing with the public, speak in specifics in regards to their thinking rather than generalities, and be more forthright with their communications.
I urge you not to re-create a good plan that had input from so many across this territory.
Concept A
See comments made on Final Recommended Plan
Concept B
See comments made previously
Concept C
See comments made previously
Concept D
See comments made previously
on November 6, 2012
174. Website Submission at 10:42 AM
Concept A
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
I am ashamed when I travel outside the Yukon and have to explain that the current government has turned its back on 7 years of public consultations to do an end-run around the landclaims-derived planning process, the very guts of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Does this government honour modern treaties with First Nations or not?
Concept B
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
I am ashamed when I travel outside the Yukon and have to explain that the current government has turned its back on 7 years of public consultations to do an end-run around the landclaims-derived planning process, the very guts of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Does this government honour modern treaties with First Nations or not?
Concept C
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
I am ashamed when I travel outside the Yukon and have to explain that the current government has turned its back on 7 years of public consultations to do an end-run around the landclaims-derived planning process, the very guts of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Does this government honour modern treaties with First Nations or not?
Concept D
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
I am ashamed when I travel outside the Yukon and have to explain that the current government has turned its back on 7 years of public consultations to do an end-run around the landclaims-derived planning process, the very guts of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Does this government honour modern treaties with First Nations or not?
Summary
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
I am ashamed when I travel outside the Yukon and have to explain that the current government has turned its back on 7 years of public consultations to do an end-run around the landclaims-derived planning process, the very guts of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Does this government honour modern treaties with First Nations or not?
RUWA
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
LUD
Use original Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Reccommended Land Use Plan, not this unilateral nonsense!
175. Website Submission at 3:07 PM
Concept A
Where did you say the protection is? Especially as the very small PAs aren't even REALLY protected areas.
The 6.5 year public/FN consultative, democratic Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Commission recommends 80% of the Peel be protected, 50% completely, and 30% for possible future access. I see no indication of any protection in this concept, let alone anything like the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
THAT plan was based on what Yukoners, including First Nations want. I have no idea who this concept represents but its a fabrication that is not based on public will and this area is a public resource.
Not only that, but your Ecological and Conservation Values are fragmented. Conservation biology is OLD news, haven't you read it? Large, intact ecosystems undisturbed by development or industrial activity, connected by wildlife corridors. The level of activity that this Concept allows is too destructive.
FN have a lot more jurisdiction over the Peel than the 3% you've delineated. They once owned the whole thing and their consultation on the whole thing should hold weight, not be marginalized. This is supposed to be one of the most integrated regions of Canada, in terms of First Nation and non-First Nation populations and governments. Let's do it.
Shameful.
Concept B
Where did you say the protection is? Especially as the very small PAs aren't even REALLY protected areas.
The 6.5 year public/FN consultative, democratic Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Commission recommends 80% of the Peel be protected, 50% completely, and 30% for possible future access. I see no indication of any protection in this concept, let alone anything like the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
THAT plan was based on what Yukoners, including First Nations want. I have no idea who this concept represents but its a fabrication that is not based on public will and this area is a public resource.
Not only that, but your Ecological and Conservation Values are fragmented. Conservation biology is OLD news, haven't you read it? Large, intact ecosystems undisturbed by development or industrial activity, connected by wildlife corridors. The level of activity that this Concept allows is too destructive.
FN have a lot more jurisdiction over the Peel than the 3% you've delineated. They once owned the whole thing and their consultation on the whole thing should hold weight, not be marginalized. This is supposed to be one of the most integrated regions of Canada, in terms of First Nation and non-First Nation populations and governments. Let's do it.
I also do not understand why we think accessing non-renewable resources so deep in the wilderness, requiring such non-renewable intensive modes of transporting technology and people in, and products out, is a good or economical idea worthy of destroying the nature and ecosystem services ... mainly irreplaceable, especially in fragile northern climes.
Concept C
Where did you say the protection is? Especially as the very small PAs aren't even REALLY protected areas.
The 6.5 year public/FN consultative, democratic Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Commission recommends 80% of the Peel be protected, 50% completely, and 30% for possible future access. I see no indication of any protection in this concept, let alone anything like the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
THAT plan was based on what Yukoners, including First Nations want. I have no idea who this concept represents but its a fabrication that is not based on public will and this area is a public resource.
Not only that, but your Ecological and Conservation Values are fragmented. Conservation biology is OLD news, haven't you read it? Large, intact ecosystems undisturbed by development or industrial activity, connected by wildlife corridors. The level of activity that this Concept allows is too destructive.
FN have a lot more jurisdiction over the Peel than the 3% you've delineated. They once owned the whole thing and their consultation on the whole thing should hold weight, not be marginalized. This is supposed to be one of the most integrated regions of Canada, in terms of First Nation and non-First Nation populations and governments. Let's do it.
Concept D
The Snake should not be subjected to industrial activity. The Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Commission should stand.
Summary
The Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission is what we should be consulting on.
I support the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
I feel these concepts represent a Sham Plan, and this consultation is not real consultation. It is a betrayal of democracy, and of the many many people who have taken the time, over the last 7 years, to communicate their input to the planning process, and their support of The Plan, over the last year. It is a betrayal of democracy, openness, and transparency.
RUWA
I believe the only Land Use Plan that should be consulted on is the Final Recommended Plan that was produced by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission. I do not think the government has the right to take the work of the commission — which is based on 6.5 years of public, First Nation and stakeholder consultation — throw it out the window, come up with its own plan, and substitute it as though it is based on anything but the desires and opinions of those who created it.
LUD
A Protected Area should be a Protected Area, not a special management area. If this is the highest level of protected this new, sham plan proposes, then this alone describes the lack of desire for real protection for this area, on the part of the government and those who created this new, sham plan.
I believe the only Land Use Plan that should be consulted on is the Final Recommended Plan that was produced by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission. I do not think the government has the right to take the work of the commission — which is based on 6.5 years of public, First Nation and stakeholder consultation — throw it out the window, come up with its own plan, and substitute it as though it is based on anything but the desires and opinions of those who created it.
176. Website Submission at 3:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
If you're going to protect mor than half of it, you may as well protect all of it, because whatever does happen in that 45% percent, will the effect the other 55% regardless of what is proposed on this 2-dimensional map.
Concept A
No development in this area appeals to me. I believe that the land has been infringed upon enough. The development that is there, is there (ie: land owners, Northern cross above, etc.), but there is no reason to further develop this area. What concerns me is that even a small amount of development affects the entire area and places it at risk.
Concept B
With all of the protected areas in place via Ecological & Conservation and First Nation Values it is easy to see that business conducted in non-protected areas will be difficult. What concerns me is that development will not "stay" in it's contained areas, it will seep and cross boarders regardless.
Concept C
The only Concept should be 100% Protection.
Concept D
PROTECT THE PEEL.
Summary
SMARTEN UP.
RUWA
I believe that is extremely difficult to monitor and truly know or "manage" that which is natural and wild ; there will always be an element of the uncontrollable, the uknown and the unpredictable. This not only goes of the natural world, but for the industrial world as well, where even best intentions have fault.
LUD
I believe that the ENTIRE, 100% of the Peel Watershed basin should be protected. It is scientifically known that all elements in nature are connected to each other and that they are all a part of a cycle. Infringing on one portion of the land affects ALL of the land, vegetation and wildlife that surrounds it.
on November 7, 2012
177. Website Submission at 10:06 AM
Concept A
The non-renewable resources values concern me - why cant we just leave them there? Why do we need to dig up everything and destroy the absolute pristine beauty of the Yukon. I understand that mining is a huge part of our economy, but so is tourism. Can't we leave something untouched? Once we've mined everything, and destroyed our beautiful landscape and animal habitats, we wont have mining or tourism. I'm personally very tired of the governement not listening to the concerns of the people of the Yukon and only listening to the huge corporations with the large pocketbooks concerned about nothing but their own gains.
If you listen to the people of the Yukon, you are guaranteed to make a smart decision, for the people, for the economy, and for the environment
178. Website Submission at 11:46 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Of all the possibilities presented here, this is the best, though I'd like to see less Zone IV development.
Concept A
RUWA is not strong enough protection for such a large portion of the watershed. If surface use is 0.2% of this vast place, that is still a lot of development. I want to see more PA.
Concept B
Too much RUWA and not enough PA. Not nearly enough PA.
Concept C
Too much RUWA and not enough PA. The RUWA corridors are not wide enough.
Concept D
Not enough PA.
Summary
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
Please, please respect the plan that has come out of the last six years of consultation.
LUD
It is not productive to have widespread consultation on issues of this level of specificity. I believe there is a good plan in place. I want to see it (the Final Recommended Plan) implemented.
179. Website Submission at 2:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
excellent.
Concept A
no.
Concept B
no
Concept C
no
Concept D
no
RUWA
please stick to the original land use plan recommendations
LUD
please stick to the original land use plan recommendations = i am hurt and dismayed that YG are ignoring the years and expertise that formed these
on November 8, 2012
180. Website Submission at 8:14 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan by the Peel Planning Commission. You have spent enough tax payer's money on this process that already came to a solution that people accept.
Why are you including the tombstone park in your new concepts - this area is already protected and should not be included in the calculations for protected area in the Peel. It is visually deceiving.
Concept A
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan
Concept B
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan
Concept C
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan
Concept D
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan
Summary
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan. Some region of Yukon should be left as limited access and not have resource extraction.
RUWA
Not restrictive enough, some parts of the Yukon should be left off limits to intensive resource extraction and remain wilderness areas with limited access routes and methods - i.e. horse, canoe, plane, helicopter. Just because there is an non-renewable resource there does not mean we should always try and extract it
LUD
Land use designations should be standard across Yukon
181. Website Submission at 9:53 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan was drafted by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission (comprisingof Yukon First Nations and Yukon Government) who worked for 6 years in a process that deligently examined the Environmental, Social (Heritage & Cultural), and Economic Goals that are valued by all Yukoners. The cornerstone of the Plan is sustainable development. The result was a balanced plan intended to best meet these goals now and in the future.
The Yukon Government requested a number of specific modifications to the amount of protected areas and provision for managing access without stating why it would be appropriate.
So Please tell Yukoners how and why the recommendations set out in the final Recommendated Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan do not adequately meet these goals - then Yukoners can offer meaningful input into this consultation process..
Concept A
The RUWA is not a conservation area designation that offers Interim withdrawal from any new industrial land use and surface access.
Consequently Concept A falls short of Environmental Goals stated in the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
In my opinion is "no" to Concept A. Use the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept B
The RUWA is not a conservation area designation that offers Interim withdrawal from any new industrial land use and surface access.
Consequently Concept B falls short of Environmental Goals stated in the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
In my opinion is "no" to Concept B. Use the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
The RUWA is not a conservation area designation that offers Interim withdrawal from any new industrial land use and surface access.
Consequently Concept C falls short of Environmental Goals stated in the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
In my opinion is "no" to Concept C. Use the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
The RUWA is not a conservation area designation that offers Interim withdrawal from any new industrial land use and surface access.
Consequently Concept D falls short of Environmental Goals stated in the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
In my opinion is "no" to Concept D. Use the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
I'm unhappy and confused with the lack of rationale in Yukon Government changing the Wilderness Area (WA) land use designation.
RUWA
This designation essentially replaces the WA designation (an Interim Protected Area) as it isn't restrictive in nay meaningful way. restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) allows land uses and surface access.
Considering this is pristine wilderness land, permitting any land development (at this time) certainly falls short of preserving the wilderness character and ecological integrity - and undermines the essential goals of the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
Use Wilderness Area (WA) designation as defined in the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
LUD
The Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) as shown in the proposed Land Use concepts A, B, C, and D makes up for the largest extent of the Peel Watershed Area. Considering the Yukon has abundant resources for now and the foreseable future, why open the area to new resource use without demonstrating need.
182. Website Submission at 5:51 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Wait a second. Did I read "We want to hear from you"? You don't want to hear from us. You know already what we think. Have a look at recommended plan. This pretend consultation is just to make you look good.
Exactly two years ago, I sat in front of a computer for a whole evening answering EVERY SINGLE question in on the consultation webpage. Multiply these hours time the number of devoted citizens who filled the questionnaire.
This time, I will not lose that much time. Because I know that deep inside, you don't want to hear from me, nor from the big majority of citizens pro-Peel protection.
So my only comment regarding your undemocratic plan is:
The entire Peel watershed must be permanently protected.
Protect the Peel
Protect the Plan
Protect Democracy
on November 9, 2012
183. Website Submission at 8:56 AM
Final Recommended Plan
your road access through out the Peel
Concept A
protecting the Peel appeals to me, not having this protected for my children and the rest of Canadians is a huge concern.
RUWA
please protect the Peel
LUD
Protect the Peel, fly in access only
on November 10, 2012
184. Website Submission at 7:56 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This is not a land use plan. This is a park.
Concept A
I like the river corridors. Nothing is happening in this region for the forseeable future so this concept is reasonable.
Concept B
How will Dempster Highway be managed in protected area?
Concept C
I like the "idea" of a complete watershed protected but given not much happening in the region and with proposed river corridors, not sure necessary.
Concept D
It looks like land use management area 6 is split in two zones - this is confusing.
Summary
Should commit to reviewing this plan at a future date. My comments are based on what is happening in region now (i.e. not much). This may change, and we may need to review plan in 10 - 20 years.
RUWA
should be land management unit specific
LUD
I agree with adding these two new categories.
185. Website Submission at 8:07 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This is not a land use plan. This is a park.
Concept A
I like the river corridors. Nothing is happening in this region for the forseeable future so this concept is reasonable.
Concept B
How will Dempster Highway be managed in protected area?
Concept C
I like the "idea" of a complete watershed protected but given not much happening in the region and with proposed river corridors, not sure necessary.
Concept D
It looks like land use management area 6 is split in two zones - this is confusing.
Summary
I sent in my comments earlier with wrong email address. Here they are again.
There should be a commitment to review the plan in the future (10 to 20 years). My comments are based on fact there is not much happening the area.
RUWA
I like the river corridor idea.
LUD
I agree with the additional designations. It provides more variety in land use.
on November 12, 2012
186. Website Submission at 6:04 PM
Final Recommended Plan
What appeals to me is that over 50% of the land use area is permanently protected and the additional 25% has interim protection. This makes sense because it allows time to see how the IMA management works and what can be learned or changed from that before opening up new lands for that purpose.
Concept A
What concerns me here is that there are IMA zones in proximity to the headwaters of all four of the rivers. (#13 and #15).
What appeals to me is that further downstream the rivers are protected by two levels of designations - RUWA and the sub-category of the water corridor.
Concept B
Concerns me: The upper snake river watershed where there are non-renewable resource values is not under permanent protection. This means that with the RUWA designation new land uses could be opened up for resource extraction.
Concept C
Appeals to me: the entire length of the Snake River is under permanent protection - even where there are non-renewable resource values.
Concept D
Appeals to me: it creates complete protection for the Hart River
Concerns me: it opens up the centreal Snake River to mineral resource extraction
Summary
I am new to the Yukon (moved here in the past year) and from what I understand the population is offended that Yukon government is not sticking with the Final Recommended Plan proposed by the Commission which was based on extensive consultation with all parties. To undermine that kind of thorough consultation by adding on a new land use designation prior to the last phase of consultation seems unreasonable to me. It makes me wonder whose interests the government is trying to protect. Of course there is pressure within all of Canada to actively pursue resource development wherever it may be lucrative. But what people are recognizing (as you can see from the final recommended plan) is that we have to protect the environment. I believe people are ready for change - to make changes in their own lives and to see their government make choices that actually reflect the values that Canada used to be known for. What we want to see are government processes that make positive decisions for the future. Although land use planning is indeed about balancing trade-offs that assumes that the land use interests are equal but how can you equate economic stimulus with ecosystem health when it is ecosystem health that drives the creation and sustainability of every resource we have. Therefore, in this kind of land use planning when those are the two options, trade-offs are not as applicable here. That's why I think the Final Recommended Plan makes the most sense because it sticks to those polarities of Protected/ Not Protected and keeps them seperate. Thank you for your hard work in designing this user-friendly website.
RUWA
The RUWA designation should also take into consideration the cumulative effects of multiple uses and activities in the areas.
The limit of surface disturbance is to 0.2% of the area. What about the sub-surface disturbance that occurs with mineral exploration and/or oil and gas development?
LUD
It seems to me that instead of spreading out the designations into 3 different types just keep two designations and manage those well. If it going to be protected - then keep it that way. For the existing land use category of IMA's keep the integrity of focusing on sustainable resource development. How can the goal of protection and integrated management of the previously designated areas be properly achieved while time and energy is going towards approving new land use and surface access?
187. Website Submission at 8:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I agree with the final recommended plan of the peel planning commission
Concept A
RUWA and RUWA corridor do not provide sufficient protection for the areas designated
Concept B
very little difference only area 4. RUWA, RUWA corridor do not provide protection. If .2% of the land base were developed there would be no wilderness in the core of the wernecke mtns
Concept C
The snake river area is a good area to protect but the PA designation allows roads for existing mining claims. This is not protection.
Concept D
Again the PA designation does not provide real protection. It allows roads to access any existing claims.
Summary
Please accept the plan recommended by the Peel Planning Commission developed in good faith by Yukoners and Yukon First Nations as required by the Umbrella Final Agreement.
RUWA
The RUWA designation does not provide for wilderness protection. Wilderness protection can only be achieved with no roads and no development. it is not a wilderness designation.
LUD
PA a protected area should not have roads. permits cannot allow any roads which dissect the PA.
RUWA- this is not a wilderness designation if it allows development of .2% of the area. Th eonly difference between this and undeveloped yukon land is the requitrement to notify of class1 activities... No wheeled vehicles, no heavy equipment activities should be allowed in wilderness. RUWA corridors: are not wide enough. viewscape is not sufficient, wildlife needs undisturbed access and movement across ecosystems. temporary acess and river crossings should not be allowed. tempoarary access results in long term changes to fragile northern ecosystems.
on November 13, 2012
188. Website Submission at 12:18 AM
Final Recommended Plan
None of the YG proposed aspects appeal to me. All of the YG proposed aspects are a major concern to me.
Concept A
The proposed land use designations are a poor attempt to undermine the VALID and defendable work of the planning commission.
Concept B
Simply put, stop trying to validate these designations which are not based on the mandate given to the planning commission, but based on YG's attempt to undermine the commission's work and cater to Yukon Party funders.
Concept C
Same as in my previous comments.
Concept D
Ditto
Summary
Respect the work of the Commission which reflects Yukoner's, not Yukon Party views.
RUWA
The best way to leave wilderness as wilderness and not pretend multiple use is a valid method to protect wilderness.
LUD
My suggestion is to keep the designations found in the Peel Commission's plan and stop trying to delude Yukoners.
189. Website Submission at 11:42 AM
Final Recommended Plan
When you consider the rivers as haveing tourism value here you are not taking into account that they are traveling the river to see the spectacular scenery around them. with out the scenery the area would be void of activity. Non renewable resources, if all is developed will leave nothing in the area. The ecological and conservation values are not recognized enough. This is the best plan offered, but I was hoping you could do better.
Concept A
The protected area is not big enough.
Summary
We do not have enough protected areas for the size of the territory. I am very concerned for our enviroment. I need it to live so please do not burn down my house.
RUWA
I want a Protected Area as was recommended by the Land Use Planning Committee. Actually this is a significant compromise to the original protection that was asksed for. This area is very important to help in keeping our environment in tact. I believe we need to keep our inviroment healthy so we can stay healthy. I have witnessed first hand how the environment can affect ones health as I grew up in Alberta and my mother was very much affected by gas development. She could actually breath comfortable when she came to the Yukon. Do we need to suffer like that here?
LUD
This area needs to be a Habitat Protection Area that designates how it will be used and what areas will never be disturbed. Much of it never need to be disturbed in my opinion. There is a tremendous area that is being explored now and has the possibility of being ruined. There is no regulators for people who use our wilderness and we are already considered a 3rd world country in our attitude towards environmental preservation. RUWA will never work because Environment Yukon has no policing authority.
on November 14, 2012
190. Website Submission at 8:03 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I love the full protection of the greater scope of the headwaters. The interim protection of the hart river seems to be an acceptable concession. I like the concentration of the IMA III zones by the Dempster highway; it seems reasonable to want to concentrate surface work to where surface access already is located. I'm mildly concerned about how close zones 13 and 15 encroach on the river, but it is hard to say with no scale on the map.
Concept A
I'm finding it hard to distinguish in practical terms the difference between the RUWA zone and the II/III IMA zones. The Final Recommended plan IMA designations suggest that a surface disturbance allowance of 0.2% would be considered a IMA Zone of II/III. The RUWA zone does mention that the zone would be managed to protect ecological and cultural significance and require a reclamation plan, but I feel that the IMA zones should have these requirements as well. The reclamation plan in particular should be integral to activity in any of the zones; I was under the impression that granting companies the privilege of exploiting the land was contingent on the fact that they'd be returning it to a natural state upon completion of their activities. I also do not find appealing that surface access is being considered in zones 8 and 9. This is prime wilderness area that has fairly significant recreational value, and surface disturbance significantly detracts from the quality of the recreational experience.
Concept B
I don't see a substantial difference between concepts A and B so my criticisms of A apply here as well. The PA designation of A is nice I supposed, but I feel in practical terms wouldn't make a significant difference, and could in fact encourage more surface disturbance in 'better' wilderness areas by removing access that is already available/close to the Dempster.
Concept C
The same criticisms of A and B apply here. I do appreciate the substantial protection of the Snake river. Protecting a larger contiguous area in this manner makes a significant difference in terms of area enjoyment and impact on local ecological values.
Concept D
I feel this concept is significantly inferior to concept C. Breaking up the continuity of the PA in zone 9 significantly detracts from the effectiveness of the PA zones at the head- and tailwaters of the Snake. I don't think the tradeoff for protecting a section of the Hart is worth it. Plus the protection in Zone 6 looks like it may reduce the usefulness and accessibility of surface access in zone 8. Fundamentally, surrounding a exploration area with PA significantly reduces the quality of the PA - continuous swaths of PA are much nicer than the same area of PA mixed and spread out around exploration areas.
Summary
The Final Recommended Plan matches with my expectations and values more than the other plans. The continuous PA in zones 8 and 9 is very significant in particular, as well as localizing surface access to areas already disturbed. The interim protection of the Hart is also substantial - I feel there should be no rush to exploit all the land at once.
I'm not a fan of the Concepts because I feel that zones 8 and 9 should be fully protected. Zones 4 and 6 would ideally be protected, but are also already reasonably accessible, and thus either interim protection or some RUWA level would be reasonable. I'm especially curious as to why none of the concepts protected zone 8 - why is surface access in this zone so desirable?
RUWA
The RUWA looks very similar but slightly superior to the IMA zones. The RUWA's 0.2% surface disturbance limit is roughly equivalent to a IMA zone II or III, but has the added benefit of management to protect ecological values and the requirement of a reclamation plan and security.
In practical terms I feel that the IMA zones should be updated with both these benefits.
LUD
The RUWA vs the IMA zones is a bit redundant - I think the IMA zones should be done away with and the RUWA zone should be broken up into levels I-IV based on surface access.
191. Website Submission at 10:53 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
Concept A
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
Concept B
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
Concept C
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
Concept D
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
Summary
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
LUD
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. There are significant differences between the land designation system in the Final Recommended Plan and the one proposed by the Yukon Government.
on November 15, 2012
192. Website Submission at 11:12 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
Concept A
FOR SOME REASON THIS DID NOT GET CARRIED FORWARD WHEN i SUBMITTED IT THE FIRST TIME. I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
Concept B
FOR SOME REASON THIS DID NOT GET CARRIED FORWARD WHEN i SUBMITTED IT THE FIRST TIME. I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
Concept C
FOR SOME REASON THIS DID NOT GET CARRIED FORWARD WHEN i SUBMITTED IT THE FIRST TIME. I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
Concept D
FOR SOME REASON THIS DID NOT GET CARRIED FORWARD WHEN i SUBMITTED IT THE FIRST TIME. I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
Summary
I don't think it's necessary to change the plan for the the Peel Watershed Region. I'm satisfied that the Peel Planning Commission has supplied us with a well-researched, balanced plan, one that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the process. I have read the relevant section of the Umbrella Final Agreement and I believe that any attempt by the Yukon Party to introduce new concepts to the process falls outside of said UFA, and is potentially illegal.
193. Website Submission at 11:26 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Protection of the snack and partial protection of the bonnet plume. Protection of the turner lake wetlands (although expanded might be more appropriate.
Again my frustration here is that I am not reviewing the work of the commission. Had you first allowed us to do a final consultation on that, then this modification might have been appropriate but the compromise of a public process is significant.
What happened to the WA restricted use designation on the previous page?
Concept A
Not in favour of this at all. Of primary importance is reflecting First Nation interests and values and this is really far off the mark.
Secondly is the protection of ecological values and this is also off the mark. This is not just a pie that we are trying to cut up between the different interests. This is an area of international significance.
Concept C
Looks the same as option B. But different policies apply?
Concept D
Do not support this. I would like to see a pro-active plan that maximizes the protection of ecological values and First Nation values of the area.
Summary
I work as a planner in the territory. The decision not to proceed with a public consultation on the Peel Commission's recommended plan has greatly undermined the reputation for planning in this territory. We face increased cynicism, increased reluctance to participate and distrust of government and planning processes.
RUWA
I don't believe that the types of activities being proposed for the RUWA should be taking place in anything that is referred to as a 'wilderness area'.
Without seeing the map it is difficult to respond as to whether this is appropriate. If the RUWA is a small area then perhaps it is appropriate.
LUD
I would like the opportunity to review the land use designations developed by the Land Use Planning Commission as set out in the Umbrella Final Agreement. I and all of us in the Yukon , as tax payers, have paid considerably for the work that they have done and I would like to see the end result. What Government decides afterwards is up to them (although subject to public support or outcry).
194. Website Submission at 7:09 PM
195. Website Submission at 11:22 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the plan I support wholeheartedly. it is balanced and conceived via public consultation.
Concept A
Unacceptable - lands must be permanently protected as per the final recommendation plan.
Concept B
It appears Concept ABCD and deliberately removing critical areas of the peel watershed from permanent protection. This is very concerning. No aspects appeal to me of the current Yukon Government Plan.
Concept C
It appears Concept ABCD and deliberately removing critical areas of the peel watershed from permanent protection. This is very concerning. No aspects appeal to me of the current Yukon Government Plan.
I support the Final Recommended Plan designed though REAL consultation.
Concept D
Unacceptable again. Not one concept is appealing. What is concerning is the lack of implementation and acceptance by this government of the Final Recommended Plan.
It appears Concept ABCD and deliberately removing critical areas of the peel watershed from permanent protection.
Again, I support the Final Recommended Plan designed though REAL consultation.
Summary
My sole request,
RUWA
Maintaining values means maintaining land "as is". The character of a region changes with any incursion no matter how limited or minute. A protected area means preservation - whereas - restricted use is meaningless especially given a lack of surveillance by cuts to parks funding.
LUD
Follow the Peel Water Shed Commission Final Plan which was formed through vigorous consultation with ALL stakeholders - and not simply placed online to confuse and disenfranchise Yukoners. Implement the plan already agreed upon protecting 80% of the Watershed and stop wasting tax payers time and money.
on November 16, 2012
196. Website Submission at 3:51 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like this. This is a consensus formed plan.
Concept A
The protection of river ways is good. The substitution of IMA instead of PA is reprehensible.
Concept B
The protection of river ways is good. The substitution of IMA instead of PA is reprehensible.
Concept C
The protection of river ways is good. The substitution of IMA instead of PA is reprehensible.
Concept D
This is slightly more moderate, but the Final Recommended plan is superior.
RUWA
Maximize the Protected Areas and limit the IMAs to currently active sites. Any directly adjacent riparian zones should be classified RUWA.
197. Website Submission at 9:10 AM
Final Recommended Plan
the amount of protect, not allowing roads, the balance with industry
Concept A
i don't like how this plan will just give the public that uses the rivers a "show" that there is no industrial acitivity behind the small amount of trees in the river corridor. I also don't like that it allows the building of roads, (no such thing a temporary road, takes over 100 years for a road to disappear)
Concept B
I really don't see the difference between this and concept A, allows to much development for my liking, we should have 100% protection in this region, there is plenty of space in the yukon to develop that already has road access
Concept C
I really don't see the difference between this and concept A, allows to much development for my liking, we should have 100% protection in this region, there is plenty of space in the yukon to develop that already has road access
Concept D
I really don't see the difference between this and concept A, allows to much development for my liking, we should have 100% protection in this region, there is plenty of space in the yukon to develop that already has road access
Summary
Go with the commissions recommended final land use plan, affter mining is done with the yukon or after the next big mineral price crash, We yukoners will have to pay for the cleanup and our great great gandchildren will still be putting up with the pollution and after affects (re 500yr reclemation of faro mine comes to mind). Te yukons only sustanable industry is Tourisim and the government should be spending their time and money on that, Mining companies just want to use us and lose us, thats why so many have opened up perations in 3rd wolrd countries where there are not labour laws and enviromnetal regulations
RUWA
I think that this consultation is a waste of tax payers time and money and an insult to us that already went through this process already. THE YUKON GOVERNMENT SHOULD implement the Peel Commissions recommended final land use plan
LUD
Its an ridiculous that the Governemnt thinks it knows better then the people and the Commission(it created), and that it wants to dump 6 yrs of hard work by those people in favour a plan that completely ingnor the commissions finally recommondations. Be happy that the plan didn't recommend 100% protection, the people of the Yukon and the First Nations wanted 100% we already made our comprimise, its time to make yours and meet us at the Commissions recommended plan
198. Website Submission at 11:15 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Bottom line: 55% isn't near enough. Bump that back up to at least 75% and we're good. Oh, and that 75% should be contiguous (or at least as contiguous as possible). No point if having 75% divided into 15 different 5% chunks.
Summary
Listen to the FN folks. I may not agree with a LOT of what they tend to get riled up about, but THEY are the ones who actually do live off the land...they *should* be your primary concern, with outside investment being a distant 3rd (2nd should be local investment).
RUWA
Hard-Coded PENALTIES if/when a company scews up. It' can't be a simple "we'll deal with it on a case by case" thing. It MUST be ABSOLUTE and it MUST actually *be* detrimental to the company. Suggestion: 30% of ALL income from that location as MINIMUM penalty.
It still has to be worth if for the company, but if worse comes to worse, penalties MUST have enough bite so as to not be an "acceptable cost"; e.g., if a mine makes $100 million, but pollutes several square kilometers, the cost can't be "Oh, well, it would cost us $15 million to do it right, but if we just say screw it and pollute, it will only cost us $5 million". The penalty MUST be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the cost to do it 'right'.
199. Website Submission at 12:05 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Almost 7 years of consultations with public input = democracy.
Protection of 80% is a compromise. Considering the estimated levels of non-renewable resources, 20% open to development is more than generous considering the numbers who would see 100% protection. This is what "fair and balanced" looks like. Accept this plan.
Concept A
Not enough protection, developed behind closed doors, vague & misleading.
WAY too open to development. The majority of Yukoners and First Nations want 100% protection, this isn't even close to a compromise.
Concept B
Not enough protection, developed behind closed doors, vague & misleading.
WAY too open to development. The majority of Yukoners and First Nations want 100% protection, this isn't even close to a compromise.
Accept the Final Recommendations as put forth by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept C
Not enough protection, developed behind closed doors, vague & misleading.
WAY too open to development. The majority of Yukoners and First Nations want 100% protection, this isn't even close to a compromise.
Accept the Final Recommendations as put forth by the Peel Planning Committee.
Concept D
Not enough protection, developed behind closed doors, vague & misleading.
WAY too open to development. The majority of Yukoners and First Nations want 100% protection, this isn't even close to a compromise.
Accept the Final Recommendations as put forth by the Peel Planning Committee.
Summary
Respect Yukon values and reputations.
PLEASE, respect Democracy.
RUWA
This is so vague, it doesn't say anything at all. New designations at this point is unacceptable.
This is supposed to be a final consultation process to invite input on final "tweaks" of the Recommended Plan, not scrap it entirely.
How are land uses and surface access "managed?" What is it limited to? What about roads? Reclamation isn't enough when this is a major tourism hub, and raw wilderness is the heart of Yukon.
LUD
Throw them out.
Accept the Final Recommendations as put forth by the Peel Planning Committee.
200. Website Submission at 12:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Protect 80%. No fracking.
RUWA
No fracking
LUD
No fracking
201. Website Submission at 4:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Reject!
Concept A
"These values need to be carefully managed and protected."
I don't accept micro-management by bureaucrats or enviro-whackos in any aspect of my life or society, but since this regulation craziness can't be turned back, I support the plan with the least damage to our freedom of movement, progress and development.
Concept B
Reject!
Concept C
Reject!
Concept D
Reject!
on November 18, 2012
202. Website Submission at 8:21 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is easy to understand and seems like it would be relatively simple to manage. I like that a large proportion of the area is protected. The interim areas also provide flexibility. There is also still a significant area for managed development.
Concept A
This seems more complicated. I don't like how some of the more protected areas are sandwiched between some of the less protected areas. I'm concerned development would spread over areas where it shouldn't.
Concept B
It's kind of hard to see how this is different from Concept A. So my concerns are the same as Concept A.
Concept C
I like seeing more protected areas, but I prefer the Final Recommended Plan. This concept is also still far too complicated.
Concept D
This is better, but I still prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
I know that there could be conflict between existing rights holders and the Final Recommended Plan, but I would suggest that those individuals should perhaps have never been granted those rights. We can always provide remuneration for taking away those rights, but we will never be able to undo any damage caused to the environment. Two wrongs do not make a right.
RUWA
I would suggest that this type of designation is a mirage. You can't actively develop and protect something at the same time.
LUD
They are too complicated, and I don't think they provide a clear understanding of what would be allowed in those areas (e.g., what does "surface access" entail?
on November 19, 2012
203. Website Submission at 12:39 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Please see previous comment.
Concept A
Please see previous comment
Concept B
Please see previous comment.
Concept C
Please see previous comment
Concept D
Please see previous comment
RUWA
It is insulting to say "we want to hear from you" after a five year legitimate consultation process. This "my way or the highway" approach has wasted a lot of time, money and energy.
Despite your majority government, you were elected by a minority of Yukoners.
LUD
Please, for the sake of democracy, because a majority of Yukoners are asking for it.... PLEASE go with the original Peel Watershed Planning Commission recommendation.
Your new plan is not "balanced".
204. Website Submission at 7:06 AM
RUWA
Please respect the Peel Planning Commission's "Final Recommended Plan". This 6.5 years of work to develop this plan should not be undermined just because YG does not agree with it's outcome.
Please honor democracy and LISTEN to what First Nations and people living here in the Territory have already concluded in the Final Recommended Plan.
Sincerely,
[name protected under ATIPP Act]
205. Website Submission at 3:11 PM
Concept D
In my opinion the Final Recommended Plan should be exactly this - final. Any change to a plan that has been worked out by experts over many years,utilising taxpayers money, would seem to me as a waste of money and a waste of time. I strongly support the final recommended plan.
206. Website Submission at 8:08 PM
Concept A
light green RUWA's are the same as IMA Zone II. you should colour your map accordingly.
Concept B
It concerns me that you've taken 7 years of land use planning and arbitrarily changed the designations.
Concept C
roads through the region to allow for mining will have to follow river valleys. how do you propose to protect the valleys with this RUWA corridor designation when you will have roads running through them? and where will the mines get their water from?
Concept D
There are over 8000 claims in the region, and many of them are in LMU 8. How do you plan on protecting the watershed as the water flows into the rivers and into the Peel, from that much activity?
RUWA
It seems to me that this is not building on the work of the land use planning process. This is changing the definitions and the zoning of the plan. Why was this not proposed during the actual consultations instead of after the commission's mandate was completed. The RUWA's are the same as IMA zone II. please treat the Yukon People with respect and don't try to fool us with these thinly veiled changes that allow development in 90% of the region.
207. Website Submission at 9:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Protection of 55% of the most remote land areas appeals to me. These regions are most used by tourism as well as first nation users. Largely, in addition, this area is currently pristine and of global significance and attraction due to its in tact state. This plan does an excellent job at allowing resource extractin in key areas and protecting key areas from being significantly impacted. The areas of concern is the Hart region, I feel this region needs to be protected under this plan's SMA designation.
Concept A
The river management appeals to me, special management of these areas to not have any signs of resource extraction impacts are crucial. These are world renowned destinations. What concerns me is that the river corridors are not the only important areas. The watershed must be kept intact. Many users hike these mountains between the rivers and the wildlife and first nations use the land between rivers - I am concerned about allowing surface access in the RUWA and RUWA Corridor areas - this is not a sustainable use of the area. There is too much risk for the balance of the values. There are claims in the area, but arguably the potential is minimal and any that show potential it would be a significant amount of time before they would be economically feasible. To open the possibility of a claim exercising its right to surface access, permanently impacting the landscape, and not produce much economic gain for the territory would be catastrophic. Even if there was an economic gain, we need to balance short-term gains (that export much of the value and dollars out of the territory) with the long-term damage of areas that one day we will hold to a greater value by being ecologically intact. The PA and RUWA areas must be protected against new claims and surface access. Given the two choices: Extract now or protect now, there is only one that allows for all options in the future if we change our mind - protect now! This government needs to be careful not to put all its political capital into its balance sheets; the Yukon Party has done a decent job driving economic growth without the Peel area. If there is any hope to be re-elected in the next election, longer, more balanced legacies need to be considered.
Concept B
my thoughts are the same as in Concept A these are similar to what is important to me. I will repeat my statement:
The river management appeals to me, special management of these areas to not have any signs of resource extraction impacts are crucial. These are world renowned destinations. What concerns me is that the river corridors are not the only important areas. The watershed must be kept intact. Many users hike these mountains between the rivers and the wildlife and first nations use the land between rivers - I am concerned about allowing surface access in the RUWA and RUWA Corridor areas - this is not a sustainable use of the area. There is too much risk for the balance of the values. There are claims in the area, but arguably the potential is minimal and any that show potential it would be a significant amount of time before they would be economically feasible. To open the possibility of a claim exercising its right to surface access, permanently impacting the landscape, and not produce much economic gain for the territory would be catastrophic. Even if there was an economic gain, we need to balance short-term gains (that export much of the value and dollars out of the territory) with the long-term damage of areas that one day we will hold to a greater value by being ecologically intact. The PA and RUWA areas must be protected against new claims and surface access. Given the two choices: Extract now or protect now, there is only one that allows for the other if we change our mind - protect now! This government needs to be careful not to put all its political capital into its balance sheets; the Yukon Party has done a decent job driving economic growth without the peel area, now if there is any hope to be re-elected in the next election, longer, more balanced legacies need to be considered.
Concept C
Again, I see this plan as too similar to A and B. My comments stand as in previous concepts:
The river management appeals to me, special management of these areas to not have any signs of resource extraction impacts are crucial. These are world renowned destinations. What concerns me is that the river corridors are not the only important areas. The watershed must be kept intact. Many users hike these mountains between the rivers and the wildlife and first nations use the land between rivers - I am concerned about allowing surface access in the RUWA and RUWA Corridor areas - this is not a sustainable use of the area. There is too much risk for the balance of the values. There are claims in the area, but arguably the potential is minimal and any that show potential it would be a significant amount of time before they would be economically feasible. To open the possibility of a claim exercising its right to surface access, permanently impacting the landscape, and not produce much economic gain for the territory would be catastrophic. Even if there was an economic gain, we need to balance short-term gains (that export much of the value and dollars out of the territory) with the long-term damage of areas that one day we will hold to a greater value by being ecologically intact. The PA and RUWA areas must be protected against new claims and surface access. Given the two choices: Extract now or protect now, there is only one that allows for the other if we change our mind - protect now! This government needs to be careful not to put all its political capital into its balance sheets; the Yukon Party has done a decent job driving economic growth without the peel area, now if there is any hope to be re-elected in the next election, longer, more balanced legacies need to be considered.
Concept D
These four additional concepts are not consistant with the 7+ years of public and scientific comments and input that has been given to date. It is not appropriate for the government to allow a process to proceed with due diligence and democracy, only to flip it on it's head. This is poor practice. There is not a balance that seems to be desired to be struck in this, there seems to be a hidden economic desire by a few that is being pushed on the many - many, in fact the majority of people spoke numerous times throughout your previous processes and they spoke more to what is in the "Final Recommended Plan" outlined by the PWPC. My comments on this concepts are the same as the previous three:
The river management appeals to me, special management of these areas to not have any signs of resource extraction impacts are crucial. These are world renowned destinations. What concerns me is that the river corridors are not the only important areas. The watershed must be kept intact. Many users hike these mountains between the rivers and the wildlife and first nations use the land between rivers - I am concerned about allowing surface access in the RUWA and RUWA Corridor areas - this is not a sustainable use of the area. There is too much risk for the balance of the values. There are claims in the area, but arguably the potential is minimal and any that show potential it would be a significant amount of time before they would be economically feasible. To open the possibility of a claim exercising its right to surface access, permanently impacting the landscape, and not produce much economic gain for the territory would be catastrophic. Even if there was an economic gain, we need to balance short-term gains (that export much of the value and dollars out of the territory) with the long-term damage of areas that one day we will hold to a greater value by being ecologically intact. The PA and RUWA areas must be protected against new claims and surface access. Given the two choices: Extract now or protect now, there is only one that allows for the other if we change our mind - protect now! This government needs to be careful not to put all its political capital into its balance sheets; the Yukon Party has done a decent job driving economic growth without the peel area, now if there is any hope to be re-elected in the next election, longer, more balanced legacies need to be considered.
RUWA
I do not believe you can protect the wilderness and cultural values in an area with "New land uses and surface access." These two uses are incompatible. You have to choose one: resource value or intact landscape value. I do not accept RUWA as a land designation for these regions proposed by the YG in these new plans.
LUD
The PA and RUWA areas in your concepts need to not allow surface access. This is not a compatible use of the land. Existing claims may be accessed by air use, this is reasonable and legal access. There are many regions that can take resource extraction with surface access, this area does not need nor can it take this use and retain its ecological, cultural and tourism value.
on November 20, 2012
208. Website Submission at 3:59 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Too restrictive.
Concept B
This looks reasonable to me.
Concept D
Concept B.
Concerned the original plan was too restrictive to ban mining exploration over a vast area.
Summary
Existing mining claims should be respected.
RUWA
I agree with RUWA will help achieve the goals.
LUD
I like the new designations better.
209. Website Submission at 7:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I believe the area should remain free of all mining and extraction of natural resources.
Reclamation does not work and often mining companies go broke an we as yukoners are left paying the bill. Leave this one area alone. Let mining continue in areas designated currently and allow the FN to make the decision on whether to allow mining on their territorial lands.
Concept A
Too much access. The entire area should be protected
Concept B
Too much access protect the entire area
Concept C
Too much access protect the entire area. Stick with the land use plan already agreed on.
Concept D
Stick with the original plan. Protect the entire area. No to mining access
Summary
The Peel Watershed Regions is one of the few true ecological regions left untouched in Canada. We could make millions on eco tourism and ordinary Yukoners as well as our FN brothers and sisters would have the opportunity to run eco tourism businesses. It is time to say no to big mining companies and yes to what Yukoners believe. Allow the Yukon to remain a wilderness destination.
on November 24, 2012
210. Website Submission at 7:10 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Too much protection, you want the Yukon to grow but you listen to only a few whiners. I am so sick of all the complainers, mining gives people and families jobs that puts money into the economy, I like to hunt in places, I like to snowmobile and ride ATV's if only a few more would speak out against this whole protection idea and quit wasting tax payers money but not everybody wants to run everybody else's lives.I don't like it. We are all equal and should all get a fair shake and use of the land. I am becoming sick of being Canadian, too much of this sort of thing. Whinny wheel gets the grease!! and all else suffer.
Concept A
too much restriction, not enough land use.
Concept B
To much restriction, not enough land use.
Concept C
to much restriction, more land use needed
Concept D
don't like it to much restriction more land use,
RUWA
I think the land should be open to all and no restrictions, I thought this was a free country for all not just the ones that want nothing to be walked on unless its them.
on November 25, 2012
211. Website Submission at 8:44 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Final Plan protects the entire watershed and the drainages from resource development ensuring the head waters of the Peel remain unspoiled. I am concerned about the poor history of governmental protection of areas of interest to industry, and think if the Final Plan is adopted that the wilderness areas (1, 4, 6, and 10) will eventually be exploited.
Concept A
Nothing appeals to me as there is a significant decrease in the level of protection for the watershed and the head waters of the Peel. The aspects of concern are the RUWA corridors. This seems to be planned buffer zone to prevent use of the land from being seen from the rivers.
Concept B
Again while offering more protection than concept A, the vast majority of the area is left for use as "managed to protect important wilderness, ecological and cultural values". My concern is that this area will be treated the same as all area's previously mined (Faro, Dawson, Mt Montana, Northern Alberta, Northern BC). These area's have been "reclaimed" but are still scars on the face of the earth (in my opinion) with the impact of mineral and oil/gas extraction still obvious from the air and ground years after they have stopped.
Concept C
no appeal, only more concern about lack of guaranteed protection.
Combine PA, RUWA and RUWA Corridor into a no development 100% protection area. Only leave no trace use like Eco tourism and outfitter concessions.
Concept D
Protect zones 2, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14, with restriction on use of 4, 6 and 10.
Summary
Accept the FINAL PLAN as it is. There is no need to change it.
RUWA
Do not allow mineral or oil/gas exploration or extraction beyond current rights. Allow eco tourism and controlled outfitter operations to maintain a minimal impact economy.
LUD
Combine PA, RUWA and RUWA into a protected area as defined by the SMA. In short use the Final Plan, don't create something new with less protection, or loop holes that will allow development down the road. Like virginity, once you give it away you can't get it back.
on November 26, 2012
212. Website Submission at 1:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
the entire planning process was a sham. the planning commission entered into the process with a preconceived notion of their desired outcome. this is in essence not an unbiased approach, and certainly not a legitimate planning process. there was no balance at all presented in their final plan, especially towards the mining and exploration industry. the entire process was hi-jacked by the tourism and outfitting industries and as such the plan was written to suit their desires exclusively. actual assessments of the mineral potential of the various regions were given only cursory consideration and future mineral potential was ignored entirely. the plan as originally presented specifies that extremely onerous levels of monitoring and enforcement be put upon YG and would without a doubt render current claims worthless.
in the end, i applaud yukon government for standing up to this unelected, unaccountable commission. the only short fall is YG did not go far enough. YG should have thanked the planning commission for its input and promptly dismissed the plan as a biased land grab by select special interest groups.
the whole thing strikes me as funny that the peel has been held up as such a pristine area and all the while there has been mineral exploration going on there for nearly a 100 years now.
213. Website Submission at 9:33 PM
Summary
Please change your colour coding on all the maps so the various areas can be easily distinguished. There are several that I'm not sure which colour means what as they are so similar. Make the maps expandable so we can read them. Then I can try to figure out what you are doing and give proper feedback. Advise the public if and when this is done in newpaper ads.
on November 27, 2012
214. Website Submission at 9:57 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Exploration and production of Potential gas and oil zones should be permitted
Concept A
This is good
Concept B
No Concerns
Concept C
No concerns..
Concept D
No concerns
RUWA
This is very similar to the recent Atlin Land use plan, in NW BC which in my view is just as scenic, if not more scenic, than the Peel River Watershed, which was put in place with hardly any fuss over a two year consultation period. As in Atlin, I feel First Nation input and consultation is very important.....as is all Yukoners input....but government has to act on National interest first.
LUD
This is good
215. Website Submission at 10:48 AM
Final Recommended Plan
What appeals to me is the fact that after years of study and consultation with all Yukoners (not to mention the dollars spent) this is what the people decided they want for the Peel watershed. Their wishes should be followed.
Concept A
Looks like a free-for-all.
Concept B
I've seen this river corridor protection at work in Borneo. If you're on the river it looks like you are travelling through undisturbed jungle, but walk 100 meters off the river and it's oil palm plantations as far as the eye can see. It offers only cosmetic protection. This is not what the majority of Yukoners want.
Concept C
Same as above.
Concept D
same as above.
Summary
I'm really tired of hearing Brad say the Yukon Party was clear on the Peel plan during the election. Not true. Whenever your candidates were asked of their views on it they avoided the issue like the plague. Please quit insulting our intelligence and do what Yukoners decided in the final recommended plan.
RUWA
It's not a wilderness area if roads are allowed. The simplest way to protect a valuable wilderness area is to prohibit new roads.
LUD
As above, no new roads.
on November 28, 2012
216. Website Submission at 8:46 AM
Concept D
Given the enormous size of the Peel watershed planning area relative to the Yukon, I am concerned that an option be selected that allows adequate access to mineral resources over the long term. Like concept D.
Summary
Thank you for the revised approach and please do not give up on developing and implementing a balanced approach, such as the one proposed, that effectively addresses a number of values. This area is too large, and contains too many non-renewable resource assets, to turn into a park.
RUWA
I think this is an excellent new land use designation category. An important element of approving uses/access in this area would be to ensure minimal disturbance and adequate security for reclamation.
LUD
Really like the RUWA river corridor concept - I think this effectively addresses the tourism values in the area.
217. Website Submission at 4:43 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I do not agree with permanently shackling of 55% of the land and temporarily of 25% of the land and taking it away from Yukoners. This map ignores current and long-time claims in the area and if shackled the government could be sued for millions of dollars.
I do NOT agree with the Final Recommended Plan!!!
Concept A
I am glad to see Tombstone Park will still be protected. I believe Concept A is the best for respecting all the various values points.
I am in support of moving forward with Concept A, not the Final Recommended Plan!!!
Concept B
2nd preferred plan, I prefer Concept A
Concept C
4th preferred, I prefer Concept A
Concept D
3rd preferred plan, I prefer Concept A
Summary
There are large deposits of oil/gas and minerals and shackling this land will only hurt the economy. The issue with roads should be mute, there is already a major highway through the area...the Dempster Highway!!!
on November 29, 2012
218. Website Submission at 1:16 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The SMA designation and the area identified protects the core area needing protection. I support this final recommended plan and believe that the designations are clear in their intent.
Concept D
This final choice still proposes RUWA in the core area that will see the most activity in terms of Oil and Gas, Mining activity. Disruption to the core of this wilderness area with protection on the periphery just does not make any sense... What government scientist (biologist or other) is prepared to put their integrity and name beside recommending this option, or is it only senior officials making this Concept D suggestion.
Summary
Can you post the names of the senior officials in our government who created and recommed the 4 concepts and their new designations. I would be very interested in having an oppertunity to contact them, ask questions and learn more about what they are thinking and recommending. Would they be willing to be accountable for their recommendations? Are they qualified to be makign recommendations that I as a tax paying member of the public expect them to have a high level of qualifications, biologists, naturalists, geologists and so on...
RUWA
The RUWA would require significant people and financial resources to manage the "active reporting, permitting and so on". It sounds like increased cost to the tax payers in a time when fiscal restraint is important. The Values in the area already determined by the public include SMA (permanent protection), that should not cost a lot and it meets the Yukon Publics expectation of preserving and protecting this important wilderness area.
LUD
Yes, my preference is to stick with the designations recommended by the Final Recommended Plan. They meet my expectations as a tax paying and voting member of the Yukon public. The new designations only provide ambiguous actively managed areas that allows the designated departments or branches of Yukon Government to discretionally decide on the fait of this important area. Looking at the Mt. Nansin area, Faro mine and other areas, Id argue that the Peel Area needs protection and has incredible value if its protected as a World Class Wilderness Area.
219. Website Submission at 1:20 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
Concept A
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
Concept B
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
Concept C
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
Concept D
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
Summary
Here is what happens when I want to change my submission.
RUWA
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
LUD
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet chicken boudin short loin venison biltong ham hock beef shank shoulder turkey brisket kielbasa. Meatloaf ham hock flank bacon kielbasa. Pig ribeye cow shank. Salami ham hock pig pork belly cow ribeye tri-tip pancetta chicken meatloaf shankle jowl drumstick turkey rump. Swine pork hamburger spare ribs beef, sirloin ground round rump pig filet mignon chuck brisket. Prosciutto spare ribs andouille, ham leberkas tenderloin capicola pork belly shankle brisket.
220. Website Submission at 5:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
Concept A
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
Concept B
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
Concept C
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
Concept D
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
Summary
It couldn't be more obvious. Adopt the plan, respect the compromise achieved after years of hard work, avoid a divisive and costly court battle with the First Nations, and protect one of the last great wilderness areas left in the world.
RUWA
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
LUD
Adopt the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It addresses all of these issues.
on November 30, 2012
221. Website Submission at 3:21 PM
Concept A
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
Concept B
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
Concept C
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
Concept D
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
Summary
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
RUWA
Please respect the original plan. This new approach is confusing and harmful to the planning process. Please protect the Peel wilderness and keep it wild.
LUD
I think this is a sneaky way to try and get around the recommendations of the planning commission. It is undermining trust in government.
222. Website Submission at 9:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I do find the original plan to be a fair compromise.
What concerns me is the process which this government has initiated to shelve the Peel Planning Commission's recommendations..
I am thankful for the leadership of the affected First Nations in standing up to this slap in the face to the many who sincerely contributed to the process.
Your government's response only serves to strengthen cynicism towards governments.
Concept A
I have travelled on highways where just a short distance out of view the forest was clear-cut. The lumber industry has now been forced to look at more sustainable stewardship of crown lands.
Why does this government want to continue such window dressing in the mining sector?
Concept B
I am confused as to which of the plans this is now referring to. Is this confusion part of the intention?
I am not interested in translating the original plan into your new terms and agendas.
Concept C
See above.
Concept D
see above
RUWA
I do not approve of this category. Road access completely changes the character of an area.
Why has the government come up with entirely new categories, if not to confuse the issue?
LUD
Why has the government come up with entirely new categories, if not to confuse things?
RUWA-Narrow ribbons which cut rivers off the surrounding areas and deny the interconnectedness of an entire land area.
223. Website Submission at 10:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan over all other concepts presented. It provides the necessary minimum protected areas.
Concept A
Too much area designated for development and not nearly enough designated as PA - Protected Area.
Concept B
Concept of corridors does not provide nearly enough protected area. It only fragments an entire region that should be protected in its entirety.
Concept C
Better than Concept B but this is still far from the intent of the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
Similar to Concept C but even less area identified as PA. Still too much area identified as RUWA when instead it should be designated PA.
RUWA
Forget your proposal and stick to the final plan prepared by the Peel Commission. The proposed YG land use designations water down the protected areas identified in the in the Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
Keep them as originally proposed by the Peel Commission.
on December 1, 2012
224. Website Submission at 8:18 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I have no concerns with the final recommended plan. True wilderness areas are becoming increasingly valuable. A protected area the size of the Peel could make Yukon the envy of the world.
Concept A
Very little about this appeals to me. Go with the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
Recommending a new approach AFTER consultations have occurred and a plan has been presented is foolish and a waste of my tax dollars. Go with the plan as presented and consider using other land designations in future plans.
When considering RUWA in future plans, also consider noise. Although a road system may not be visible, truck and heavy equipment traffic can be heard even over a mountain range.
LUD
Recommending a new approach AFTER consultations have occurred and a plan has been presented is foolish and a waste of my tax dollars. Go with the plan as presented and consider using other land designations in future plans.
on December 4, 2012
225. Website Submission at 5:59 AM
Final Recommended Plan
That you are not listening to Yukoners and the Peel Watershed Planning Committee`s recommendations
Concept A
None appeals to me and it concerns me that anyone would ever consider allowing any development into such prestine wilderness, some of the last on the planet. It is not yours to destroy.
Concept B
conserve it all and leave it the way it has been since creation.
Concept C
Some of our Chiefs make the claim that the land
belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told
me. He told me that the land belongs to Him, that
no people own the land, and that I was not to forget
to tell that to the white people.
Concept D
Some of our Chiefs make the claim that the land
belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told
me. He told me that the land belongs to Him, that
no people own the land, and that I was not to forget
to tell that to the white people.
Summary
I would rather use our oxygen for breathing than have vehicles such it up while waiting for their Timmie`s coffee - what a waste and such damage to our environment - this is really what it is all about.
RUWA
Land manages itself, it does not need your interference.
Some of our Chiefs make the claim that the land
belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told
me. He told me that the land belongs to Him, that
no people own the land, and that I was not to forget
to tell that to the white people.
LUD
Keep with the Peel Watershed Committees Plan because they are not in the pockets of the oil companies like the Yukon Government
on December 5, 2012
226. Website Submission at 10:42 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The fact that this plan was put together by a commission through consultation with stakeholders and first nations appeals to me. The designations they recommend are arrived at through consultation and careful consideration. The only aspect that concerns me is that not more of the area is recommended to be protected.
Concept A
I do not like this concept, it breaks the area up into fragments which will thereby fragment the ecosystem and make many species of flora and fauna vulnerable. I believe this area has more value as an intact ecosystem because intact it can supply the ecological and conservation values, the first nations values and the tourism and recreation values.
Concept B
That it recognizes and protects the rivers and first nations values appeals to me, but I am concerned that as it 'Seeks to reduce conflicts with existing rights under the Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) designation' it will be improperly managed.
Concept C
I like that this concept recognizes and protects first nation values and tourism values to some degree, but it falls short on recognizing and protecting land ownership values and ecological and conservation values.
Concept D
I don't like anything about this concept. It seems pretty light on any meaningful protection of values other than non-renewable resource values.
Summary
Here's an idea worth your consideration - listen to the majority of Yukoners when they tell you they want something. Listen to them, hear them, and do as they direct you since they are your employer.
RUWA
I do not believe that the RUWA designation can achieve this goal as the Yukon Government's ability to manage land uses and values has been proven to be inadequate. The current government does not understand the true value of the various resources within this planning area and therefore the cost analysis that this designation is being based on is too misleading to be trusted.
LUD
At the very least, I would suggest that the entire area be designated as a PA, until such time as the government becomes willing to accept the recommendations of the planning committee.
on December 9, 2012
227. Website Submission at 6:03 AM
Final Recommended Plan
If there's resources there, lets go get them.
RUWA
open up the peel faster.
228. Website Submission at 2:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
MUCH too restrictive. All 4 concepts put forth by Yukon Government are a better balance between development and environmental responsibility. Even still, the allowable disturbance footprint in the new concepts is extremely small.
RUWA
RUWA is a great idea to achieve the goal between responsible development and environmental protection. This type of land use designation was missing from the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommendations.
LUD
0.2% surface disturbance is EXTREMELY restrictive. I would be in favour of increasing this limitation. Industry regulation is important, and Yukon Government can utilize regulation to ensure that environmental concerns are alleviated. While I believe this plan is still extremely restrictive, I do believe that it is better and improves upon the Final Recommendations that were put forth by the Peel Planning Commission.
229. Website Submission at 8:20 PM
Final Recommended Plan
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
Concept A
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
Concept B
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
Concept C
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
Concept D
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
RUWA
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
LUD
my only comment is to get rid of the integrated management area. I thought that this was over and dealt with. Can't we just have one river on the entire planet that is not degraded from industry ?
on December 10, 2012
230. Website Submission at 1:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I think the final recommended plan includes a well thought out plan for the future, including protecting areas for possible future development.
Concept A
All aspects of the recommended plan appeal to me, in terms of balance of current use
Concept B
I think the governments approach is too loose and does not protect the interests of all yukoners for the future.
RUWA
I think the government should proceed as outlined by the commission's recommended plan arrived at after years of consultation with all stakeholders.
LUD
I think that after 6 years of exhaustive consultation that it is an obscene waste of time and tax dollars that we are even considering so much change to the recommended plan. It makes one wonder what is the point of all this 'consultation' and asking for our input - it has been given over and over ....adopt the plan as recommended
on December 11, 2012
231. Website Submission at 9:59 AM
Concept A
No Comment
Concept B
No Comment
Concept C
All Aspects Appear acceptable
Concept D
No comment
Summary
Make the decisions substantiate it and move forward.
RUWA
Accepting the responsibility of governance. Accept that it is the responsibility of government to allow for the development of resources with due respect for the environment without placing the economy in jeopardy. The people that cannot afford housing or line up at the food bank are not the ones employed by mining or the natural resource development to wit mining and petroleum or oil industry. The tourist industry is a in fill and cannot be relied upon as the back bone of our economy.
LUD
Focus on the economy, the people that elected you are busy at work not demonstrating or signing petitions.
232. Website Submission at 10:28 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I fully support this final recommended plan that was the result of years of consultation. It is a resonablecompromise that we all agreed to during the official process.
Concept A
I fully support the final recommended plan that was the result of years of consultation. These new concepts are an insult to all us yukoners who participated in the correct legislated process. Please stop this disrespect.
Concept B
I fully support the final recommended plan that was the result of years of consultation. These new concepts are an insult to all us yukoners who participated in the correct legislated process. Please stop this disrespect.
Concept C
I fully support the final recommended plan that was the result of years of consultation. These new concepts are an insult to all us yukoners who participated in the correct legislated process. Please stop this disrespect.
Concept D
I fully support the final recommended plan that was the result of years of consultation. These new concepts are an insult to all us yukoners who participated in the correct legislated process. Please stop this disrespect.
RUWA
Development and true wilderness are mutually exclusive. The Peel wilderness needs large areas that recieve full protection from development.
LUD
Development and true wilderness are mutually exclusive. The Peel wilderness needs large areas that recieve full protection from development.
on December 13, 2012
233. Website Submission at 4:29 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Stick to the original plan....
Concept A
Stick to the original plan....
Concept B
Stick to the original plan....
Concept C
Stick to the original plan....
Concept D
Stick to the original plan....
Summary
Stick to the original plan....
RUWA
Stick to the original plan....
LUD
Stick to the original plan....
on December 14, 2012
234. Website Submission at 8:27 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
Concept A
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
Concept B
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
Concept C
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
Concept D
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
LUD
I don't want the Yukon to be turned into a massive Park. I want to see mineral as well as oil and gas development throughout all Yukon. We already have Federal and Territorial parks.
235. Website Submission at 9:58 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Assuming we are referring to the commission's final recommended plan, the aspects that appeal to me is that it follows consultations with all stakeholders, and represents a reasonable compromise where all sides receive some benefits.
Concept A
I am concerned that the protected areas are shrunk into a four small, unconnected areas. The watershed (the four major tributaries) is under-protected. The development in the north (Peel River) effectively divides east (towards NWT) from the west
Concept B
Same concerns as for Concept A, the differences between concepts A and B are insignificant
Concept C
Same as for concepts A and B
Concept D
The watershed is not protected enough. The North part breaks east from west
RUWA
The RUWA concept is not realistic - a narrow corridor around a river will not stop flow into the river.
LUD
Drop the RUWA, use the same categories and colours that the commission used
236. Website Submission at 5:07 PM
RUWA
I am in agreeement with considering all land uses, including indusrty uses.
While considering speical wetlands or areas of special protection.
I am in agreement with some road access, with little or no impact on special areas or on the interests of outfitters, trappers or wilderness tourism operators.
237. Website Submission at 11:20 PM
Summary
Same answer again: No suggestions because the Peel Planning Commissions has after countless hours of discussion and consultation drafted a final report. I believe that, that final report should be the final document for planning of the Peel Watershed. YTG's plans offer too much area up for development, stick with the original plan it is what works best for the Peel, period.
RUWA
No suggestions because the Peel Planning Commissions has after countless hours of discussion and consultation drafted a final report. I believe that, that final report should be the final document for planning of the Peel Watershed. YTG's plans offer too much area up for development, stick with the original plan it is what works best for the Peel, period.
LUD
Same answer as last time. No suggestions because the Peel Planning Commissions has after countless hours of discussion and consultation drafted a final report. I believe that, that final report should be the final document for planning of the Peel Watershed. YTG's plans offer too much area up for development, stick with the original plan it is what works best for the Peel, period.
on December 15, 2012
238. Website Submission at 8:33 AM
Summary
Please do not follow through with these plans. They do not do enough to protect the environment, the habitat, the wildlife, or anything.
It allows for development and exploration which everyone knows will ahve an impact on these areas.
If you follow through with these plans the destruction of the Peel Watershed will be very similiar to the destruction completed and continuing in Alberta with the Tar Sands and the other areas of Alberta where oil, gas, and mineral exploration has destroyed massive areas of land and water.
RUWA
I personally feel that the original Peel Watershed Plan that was approved prior to this New Land Use designation is a much better plan that provides a clear outline for Protection of the Peel Watershed. This new plan is a Industrial Plan for the PEel Watershed and I feel it does not provide for the same care and protection of the land, water, wildlife and habitat protection.
This is a similiar plan for the environment that Alberta, and the Federal Government is trying to use to encourage exploration and destruction of the environment.
This new plan is not a good plan
LUD
My suggestion is to use the original Peel Watershed Plan that was developed and agreed upon.
This new plan should be scrapped and the money wasted should be returned to protecting the PEel Watershed more.
Please listen to the concerns that the professional scientists, environmentalists, engineers, biologists, First Nations Peoples, Yukoners, and other Protection minded people have to say about this.
Industry has shown it will not prtotect the environment in a satisfactory manner despite their best wishes. Environment protection is not a cost effective business plan. Any damage done to teh Peel Watershed cannot be undone without hundreds of years of nature taking its own course. Any development will be a detriment to teh environment, and in turn to Yukoners
on December 16, 2012
239. Website Submission at 8:36 AM
Concept A
no development- think long term and turn it into a park
Concept B
no development
Concept C
no development
Concept D
no development
Summary
no development-no roads, no mines, set it aside for long term use by all
RUWA
no deveolopment
LUD
no development
240. Website Submission at 12:17 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Unfortunately I only have concerns about YTG's suggestions. These are:
1. the undemocratic process of how the Recommended Peel Watershed Plan by the Peel Watershed Commission was rejected by the current Yukon Government
2. the non-transparant process of data collection in YTG's current Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Consultation
3. the inaccuracy of data collection in YTG's current Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Consultation: How was the data collected at YTG's open houses? How is it analyzed? There is no organized process in place to do that.
4. then there are many details: colour changes on the maps; intentional presentation of many different options in order to create confusion or it is a simple reflection on how poorly planned YTG's current land use plan actually is.
Concept A
What appeals to me are the pretty colours used on the map to illustrate the different land use designations. What concerns me is that there is not enough true protection of the land. The land use designations are ambiguous and obscure. My interpretation is that there is no true protection of the area and that it seems to be open for any kinds of development. Also, there are a few rivers missing on that map, just saying...
Concept B
I love green.
But again, read my previous comment. The concepts do not change all that much according to my interpretation. I see a pro-development plan and I reject the idea that 6+years of planning and consultation with the public, interest-groups and users is not accurate enough.
Concept C
read my previous comments.
Summary
I suggest that the data collected in these questionnaire to be made public.
I suggest that YTG adopts a more transparent process in this consultation as the current YTG is losing faith of many people. I suggest that the current YTG realizes that the Recommended Peel Watershed Plan by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is gaining more support in part of the undemocratic process that current YTG has adapted. I am against a new plan, because it is in conflict with the Umbrella Final Agreement and it is a typical colonizers move against the First Nations in Yukon Territory.
RUWA
I am not sure why a new designation is necessary, other than what is proposed in the Recommended Peel Watershed plan by the Peel Watershed Commission that was developed in conjunction with the Yukon government over a period of 6+ years. I do not see a benefit in changing the proposed management areas.
LUD
Again, I don't understand why the land use designations that were used in the Recommended Peel Watershed are not good enough, when those were developed of a period of over 6 years in conjunction with the government, residents, users, and other interest groups. I can't imagine land use designations that were developed only by bureaucrats to be better. I would go as far as to say that bureaucrats might not be the experts in this case.
on December 20, 2012
241. Website Submission at 9:24 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Go with the original plan and move on... There are many more regions to do.
Concept A
Go with the original plan and move on
Concept B
Go with the original plan and move on
Concept C
Go with the original plan and move on
Concept D
Go with the original plan and move on
Summary
Go with the original plan and move on
RUWA
Go with the original plan and move on
LUD
Go with the original plan and move on
on December 22, 2012
242. Website Submission at 7:00 PM
Concept D
I believe all groups need to be listened to when it comes to land use planning in all area's of Yukon, not just the NIMBY's. No one group has the right to bulldoze the opinions, wants and needs of other Yukoners'. this plan seems quite complex and all of the 4 concepts try to appease all groups involved. Make sure the core sensitive areas are protected and the rest of the land has the appropriate protection to allow economic development which in my opinion includes mining, private land ownership, tourisim and first nation use.
Summary
I support a land use in the peel area that allows for economic development in the plan, please do not cave to the groups that want to create one monster park ignoring all other stakeholders
on December 23, 2012
243. Website Submission at 7:50 PM
Final Recommended Plan
A final recommended plan already exists. This consultation and new "concepts" are an insult taxpayers and the democratic process.
RUWA
This designation is designed to mislead the public and skirt the Peel watershed land use planning committee's report. Yukon Government needs to respect the results of the committee's recommendations, already paid for by Yukon taxpayers.
LUD
End this charade immediately and adopt the committee's original recommendations. It is an affront to the democratic process to invent a new process under the guise of "consultation". It is clear that these new designations are designed to open the door to nearly unbridled mineral exploitation. Honor the process that has already been completed at great expense to the taxpayer.
on December 27, 2012
244. Website Submission at 10:09 AM
Final Recommended Plan
In general, the non-renewable resource values are in a different area than the tourism and rec values so it seems like the perfect compromise to give both industries what they want. The 80 to 100% protection the FNs and environmental groups is completely unrealistic. The major river corridors are protected from development as is over half of the entire area. I believe this plan has taken all viewpoints into consideration and is well thought out and maintains the rights of the mining industry as well as guarantees protection of the majority of the area.
Concept A
The aspect that most appeals to me is the RUWA corridor protection. This ensures both protection of the river valleys but still allows temporary access to mining areas under tight management/monitoring. Again, ideal compromise of conflicting interests.
What aspects concern me most is the extensive FN values, it seems disproportionate to other interests.
Concept D
I believe this is my choice of the concepts listed. What I like about this is that existing mineral interests in the Snake River area are recognized. I believe this is important to maintain confidence in the Yukon from the mining community. Those claims were staked in good faith and should be recognized.
Summary
I appreciate that the the government had the cajones to not just accept the Peel Commission's plan outright. I think this showed leadership and I believe they have come up with a much more reasonable approach to the development of our wilderness areas-Good work!!
RUWA
I think this is the ideal compromise. As it states, the activities will be actively managed to protect ecological and cultural values, what more can you ask for? Limits surface disturbance to one-fifth of 1% of the land area-more than reasonable!! I think this should more than accommodate the environmental lobby and them asking for anything more is just being ridiculous.
245. Website Submission at 4:26 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am VERY concerned with the process that happened. Allowing a land use planning Commission process to occur for 4-5 years, and THEN having the Yukon Government take what they produced and change the whole thing completely undermines the planning process that happened. A lot of people put significant time, resources, and care into participating in that process. To have that basically tossed out and rewritten by the Yukon Government makes everyone wonder "why bother". This is a really poor way to manage public consultation and public engagement. At the very least, YG should have made its interests clear during the land use planning commission's process. To do so at the end of the Commission's work (review of recommendations phase), and then have YG do its own different process once the Commission is done, is an unacceptable waste of public good will invested in the Commission's process.
Concept C
As a minimum, we ought to expand the Tombstone park as a true protected area, as shown here and protect one whole river corridor as a protected area, as shown here. The Snake is more popular and accessible for river tourism than the Hart, so I think protecting the Snake corridor makes the most sense. So, I guess this is my preferred option out of what is presented. But I couch this "support" in my overall comment about the process, and about the value of this wilderness resource and how Yukon ought to be taking really good care of that world-class rare and valuable resource.
RUWA
My concern is that the wilderness character will be lost, with the type of development envisioned in a RUWA. Unfortunately, we cannot "have it all". Roads significantly change an area. Mining definitely changes an area. Yukon is known world-wide as a remarkable destination, BECAUSE of the amazing true wilderness opportunities still possible here. That advantage that sets Yukon apart will only become more pronounced over time. And it is important to be realistic: Wilderness does not "grow back" in a few decades (just check the reforested areas in the BC section of the Steward Cassiar Highway to see excellent cases in point, in places with much higher vegetation growth rates than Yukon. With this amazing wilderness, we have something valuable, rare, and important, on a world scale here. We need to take care of it, or it's gone gone gone.
246. Website Submission at 7:23 PM
LUD
I strongly support the government's position of a balanced approach to the land use plan
on December 30, 2012
247. Website Submission at 6:33 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
Concept A
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
Concept B
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
Concept C
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
Concept D
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
Summary
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
RUWA
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
LUD
Only the original Peel Planning Commission plan is acceptable. It was achieved after seven years of public consultation and compromise.
on January 1, 2013
248. Website Submission at 11:12 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The entire area should be protected. The First Nations governments should have the final say on this area.
on January 2, 2013
249. Website Submission at 5:24 PM
Final Recommended Plan
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
Concept A
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
Concept B
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
Concept C
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
Concept D
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
Summary
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
RUWA
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
LUD
You must consult with affected First Nations before you consider doing anything else!
on January 4, 2013
250. Website Submission at 1:50 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is far too much protection. Huge swaths of land grouped together for no apparent reason - none of the overlays match up with the 16 boundaries.
Concept A
Active Management is an AWFUL concept! However, I like the idea of the corridors along the rivers, though again, the huge swathes of land surrounding those four rivers are kind of arbitrarily added for protection.
I would suggest allowing development according to our existing stable of regulations across nearly the whole area. YESAA will capture a lot of concerns that any potential development might create.
I don't feel comfortable labelling anything as a protected area, because every different development will have different footprints and visibilities, and each should be dealt with subjectively through a YESAA application.
Concept B
See Concept A comment.
Concept C
See Concept A comment.
Concept D
See comments for Concept A. Furthermore, this has even more Protected Areas. I don't know which is worse, Protected or Actively Managed.
Summary
It feels as if Land Use Planning has hi-jacked the territory. I have an awful premonition that when this plan is finally adopted (final recommend, or any of the government's concepts of active management), the next series of land use planning is going to assume the same standard. There is going to be more protected areas or more active management, and we're either going to create the world's largest human-absent zone or build an army of bureaucrats to monitor the comings and goings of people within an area. How are they going to do that, by the way? Seems like an infuriating thing that the user will have to know about and go apply for a license or something.
RUWA
'Active Management' of an area is a bad idea: it would be creating a tax-paid position to ensure no productivity occurred. The tax payers of Ontario and Alberta would be funding some Yukon employee to ensure that only one flight each day flew over a specific area.
LUD
Leave the whole area to the standard developmental procedures - staking, YESAA, all of our other laws. For example, the Minto mine has been operating just fine and has a tiny wee little footprint. The governmental departments involved in getting the mine commissioned and ensuring continued compliance with environmental laws have been doing a good job.
By 'actively managing' uses of an area, it will become a bureaucratic mess to be a tourist in the area, or to even attempt exploration for resources. By creating that sort of expectation, it will be sending the message to the world: 'Yukon is closed for business and tourism. Screw off.' Furthermore, our laws help develop in a responsible manner, and so it's better to develop here. If we don't develop here, they will elsewhere, where perhaps labour laws, environmental laws, or trade laws aren't as balanced and responsible.
Lastly, and this is a bit of a tangent: there is nothing in this plan that speaks to tourists' waste. When someone canoes down a river, I assume they defecate into it or around it, while an exploration camp at least digs a hole. If this plan moves ahead with 'actively managing' people's interactions with the area, please ensure that tourists have a Poo Plan, including possibly carrying it out with them. That will really help deliver the message that Active Management is intended to.
on January 6, 2013
251. Website Submission at 11:59 AM
Concept A
mine it ,drill it, lets get to work.
Concept B
share the rivers ,and run off the tree huggers.
Concept C
that we cant mine all of it.
Concept D
the fact that nobody cares about anything untill some one wants to create a job
RUWA
drill it and they will come
LUD
yes, pave anwar
on January 8, 2013
252. Website Submission at 10:46 PM
RUWA
i think the government needs to open a majority of the peel to support ecnomic development. STAKING claims does not mean there will be a mine. There has been thousands of claims staked in the last few years and barely any mines opening in the Yukon. If the Yukon wants to bring in more money which the Yukon needs, they need to open up a majority of the peel to staking. The first nation in the area already have land claims and have protected areas already. We dont need more protection we economic growth for the Yukon.
LUD
i think the options all have too much protection. open more for staking!!!!
on January 9, 2013
253. Website Submission at 9:03 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The concepts show no real differences. Use the Peel Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan
RUWA
These designations depend upon future decisions by EMR who are paid to support industry.
LUD
Use the landuse designations proposed in the Peel Commision plan.
254. Website Submission at 3:17 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The whole area holds potential for non-renewable resource exploitation/exploration and use, but the same coverage does not apply to environmental concerns. What do you mean by the isolation of areas that should be environmentally protected? If an area, that is used for mining, surrounds a protected area the pollution from the surrounding areas will seep into the protected area. As evident in the latest news coverage of the Alberta oil sands and the lakes that are being polluted as a result of the oil sands. The ares that work for me are the tourism areas and the First Nations areas.
Concept A
Best option of all the recommended plans.
Concept D
All of the potential plans state: "Similar to Concepts A and B: Actively manages and withdraws the Hart, Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake rivers from new land uses through the RUWA Wilderness River Corridor designation. This designation also allows for connectivity between ecological areas and can also apply specific limitations on activities such as restricting visual obstructions and noise levels." Which is vague and sneeky. I don't really know what the Yukon Party means by the quoted statement but I do not believe any of the rivers should be used to access the land for mining and exploration and oil and gas. If using the rivers for access is absolutely necessary then only one river should be used.
Summary
I think the Yukon government is being irresponsible and non-transparent about their actions concerning this plan. I will never vote for the Yukon party.
RUWA
I do not agree with the RUWA Wilderness River Corridor points that are laid out on this web site. There should be no access to rivers and river crossing at all. The only access to land should be through air. The river beds are unique ecosystems that are easily damaged thus they should not be subjected to the levels of traffic that exploration and mining brings.
LUD
The government should designate a board of individuals that have final approval of any permits. The board should consist of First Nations, Yukoners, and well educated individuals with back grounds in environmental ethics, biology, ecology, environment engineering.
on January 10, 2013
255. Website Submission at 1:45 PM
Final Recommended Plan
this plan respects the environment and future use. it is the only plan.
Concept A
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
Concept B
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
Concept C
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
Concept D
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
RUWA
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
LUD
the only plan is the final plan as written by the commission.
256. Website Submission at 3:34 PM
Final Recommended Plan
It should all be IMA III or IV
Concept A
It should all be IMA III or IV
Concept B
It should all be IMA III or IV
Concept C
It should all be IMA III or IV
Concept D
It should all be IMA III or IV
257. Website Submission at 4:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
all appeal to me. No concerns
Concept A
concerns - removal of SMA
Concept B
concerns - removal of SMA
Concept C
concerns - removal of SMA
Concept D
concerns - removal of SMA
Summary
I highly resent this government's approach to this issue. The final recommended plan was found to be the best compromise after years of consultation. To bring new "tools" to the table is misleading at best.
RUWA
It can't - it should be called IMA if any new land uses and surface access is to occur. Clearly these activities do not belong in a wilderness area as designated in the Peel Commission's final recommended plan - this is the only acceptable designation.
LUD
"Restricted use Wilderness" is an oxymoron - either it's wilderness or it's restricted use - it can't be both!
258. Website Submission at 6:02 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I appreciate that 55% protection seems like a big number, however that protection seems to have very little overlap with mineral interests. This seems like a favourable compromise where access is provided to mineral rich areas where there is existing access.
Concept A
Zones 3 and 5 with existing access still have access and this is good. This map makes it seem like the only reason for protection is to allow a better experience for wilderness river travelers. This should be only a small amount of the reason for protection. The bigger reason is to maintain intact ecosystems.
Concept B
The concepts A thru D all have the same designation for zones 1,3,5,13,15. If these are the ones that are important for development, then they are the ones that should be under discussion compared with the final recommended plan.
In all 4 concepts; zones 12,14,11, 2, 4 and 9 all seem to be able to be protected even by the Yukon Party government. They should be protected. Period.
For Zone 8 it does not seem like the Yukon Party government has an interest in protecting it. This needs more thoughtful discussion.
Concept C
There is at the very least an intact river corridor with the Snake River,
Concept D
There are no intact river systems protected in this scenario. If the Snake River could be protected in concept C then why not for Concept D? River corridor designation is not complete protection as is alluded to with the Hart River.
Summary
There was already a lot of work put into the Final Recommended Plan, not enough credit has been given to that work. Given that this government has its own agenda, the consultation should be on areas that there are strong differences rather than confusing people with different choices that are not really choices at all.
RUWA
Nice idea, but we can only manage to protect values if we thoroughly understand all the parameters and long term impacts. I don' t believe any of us actually have that deep an understanding. Those who claim to have such an understanding are not to be trusted.
LUD
Once access is created it is extremely difficult if even possible to remove. Access creation is far more far reaching than the percentage of the land it can be said to have disturbed.
on January 11, 2013
259. Website Submission at 8:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support this recommendation. This provides the highest level of protection while still allowing industrial activities in the areas of high oil and gas potential. It protects the richest ecological areas, namely the Wind River which has the highest recreational opportunities. Most of the unglaciated communities also found in the Wind River and the front ranges of the Peel in the lower Bonnet Plume, Snake, and Peel Rivers and the southern Richardson Mountains. Provides the greatest opportunity to diversify the economy from the single focus of non-renewable resource development. Protects region from the creation of road networks which may threaten wildlife populations, and disrupt migration corridors. Allows for the opportunity for integration with adjacent protected areas in the NWT. Protects the waters of the Wind, Snake, Bonnet Plume and Peel Rivers. Recognizes opportunities for wildlife to move and adapt in the face of climate change. Perserves hiking opportunities.
Concept A
I do not support this concept. Removes protection from the core of the area most important for maintaining the most fragile ecosystems. Degrades the areas of greatest recreational opportunities, and fragments the core of the region. Removes from protection the key areas of the Wind and Snake rivers, and the front ranges that hold the areas of greatest biodiversity. Creates a vast potential network of roads. Destroys the wilderness integrity of the area. Provides opportunity for overharvest. Creates the potential to disrupt wildlife migratory routes. Does not provide opportunities for wildlife populations to move northward and upwards in face of climate change scenerios.
Concept B
I do not support this concept. As with Concept A removes protection from the core of the area most important for maintaining the most fragile ecosystems. Degrades the areas of greatest recreational opportunities, and fragments the core of the region. Removes from protection the key areas of the Wind and Snake rivers, and the front ranges that hold the areas of greatest biodiversity. Creates a vast potential network of roads. Destroys the wilderness integrity of the area. Provides opportunity for overharvest. Creates the potential to disrupt migratory routes. Does not provide opportunities for wildlife populations to move northward and upwards in face of climate change scenerios. Only achieves one goal - development and fragmentation of one of the last intact roadless ecosystems in North America.
Concept C
I do not support this concept. Does not recognize recreational nor ecological values in the core of the Peel watershed. Goes against the principles of conservation biology by providing opportunities for road networks to disturb wildlife populations and fragment migration corridors. The Wind River has the highest recreational potential for unguided opportunities. The mountains and tundra of the Wind River has the greatest diversity of endemic plant communities. Provides opportunities to increase the spread of invasive species
Concept D
I do not support this concept. Provides access to minerals while ignoring the ecological values in the core of the Peel. Puts greatest emphasize on mineral exploitation. We already have the goldfields, the Freegold Road and the Mount Nansen area as examples of this type of integrated land management.
Summary
Keep roads out of core of the Peel. Respect the final recommendations of the Peel Land Use Planning Committee. Put the final decision to a vote through a referendum.
on January 15, 2013
260. Website Submission at 10:28 AM
RUWA
i support the Yukon governments fair and balanced approach to the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
martin Lehner of Midnight Sun News has said it best in his editorial in January's issue.
on January 16, 2013
261. Website Submission at 10:29 AM
Summary
I support a more balanced land use plan, one that shares the values of everyone. The final recommended plan does not take into consideration jobs, employment and the Yukon being able to pay its bills in the long term. My family and I have personnaly benefited from sustainable exploration in the territory and I have seen countless other students and families benefit in a similar manner. Exploration has an extremely small footprint on the land, no more than an outfitter or wilderness tourism group. I support a concept similar to Concept A, as does the silent majority of Yukoners.
262. Website Submission at 9:05 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan was developed through a fair and open process, and one that mandated by Yukon land claims. I support all aspects of the Final Recommended Plan given that it is the product of this work. The only aspect that concerns me is that the Government of Yukon seems intent on undermining the intentions of Yukoners when it comes to the future of the Peel River watershed.
Concept A
Concepts A to D are ridiculous and it is underhanded to introduce them at this late phase of the planning process. These are not simple modifications to the plan; they are changes to the core of it. If the Government of Yukon feels these concepts are worthwhile it should have brought them forward at a much earlier stage of the planning process.
Concept B
Concepts A to D are ridiculous and it is underhanded to introduce them at this late phase of the planning process. These are not simple modifications to the plan; they are changes to the core of it. If the Government of Yukon feels these concepts are worthwhile it should have brought them forward at a much earlier stage of the planning process.
Concept C
Concepts A to D are ridiculous and it is underhanded to introduce them at this late phase of the planning process. These are not simple modifications to the plan; they are changes to the core of it. If the Government of Yukon feels these concepts are worthwhile it should have brought them forward at a much earlier stage of the planning process.
Concept D
Concepts A to D are ridiculous and it is underhanded to introduce them at this late phase of the planning process. These are not simple modifications to the plan; they are changes to the core of it. If the Government of Yukon feels these concepts are worthwhile it should have brought them forward at a much earlier stage of the planning process.
Summary
I suggest the Government of Yukon start participating in land use planning in a meaningful, fair and open manner.
RUWA
The best way to actively manage all land uses while protecting the values in the Peel River area is to fully support the Final Recommended Plan as is. Both Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) designations should be dropped completely. If the Government of Yukon feels this concept has value it should have brought it forward while the land use plan was being developed so it could have been discussed through the planning process. Suggesting the RUWA designation now is counter-productive and insulting to Yukoners.
LUD
The two proposed land use designation (RUWA and RUWA-Wilderness River Corridor) should be dropped completely. The Government of Yukon should have brought these forward during the planning process if it thinks they have value.
263. Website Submission at 10:05 PM
Concept A
Where's the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan? This is the concept I support. Where is that option on this webpage? Wasn't that the decision we initially invested in?
Concept B
Where's the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan? This is the concept I support. Where is that option on this webpage? Wasn't that the decision we initially invested in?
Concept C
Where's the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan? This is the concept I support. Where is that option on this webpage? Wasn't that the decision we initially invested in?
Concept D
Where's the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan? This is the concept I support. Where is that option on this webpage? Wasn't that the decision we initially invested in?
Summary
Responding to this survey is like being asked which of these 4 hammers would you like to be struck in the head with. How do you answer none? How do you respond politely and firmly that none of these "hammers" or "concepts" presented are not acceptable? You can not. I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. Please include that as Option Z. See how many people select that hammer.
Also please advise me if this answer is considered "unlawful, threatening, abusive, libellous, defamatory, vulgar or indecent" so that I can re-edit my response for public posting.
RUWA
The RUWA designation can not achieve this goal. I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan - the plan commissioned by the Yukon Party and paid for by Yukon taxpayers.
LUD
Please abandon the RUWA and commit to fully supporting the Final Recommended Plan by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
on January 19, 2013
264. Website Submission at 9:09 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I am pleased with the SMA portion of the plan however the 25% WA ensures no significant protection and is a misleading attempt to lull citizens into a false sense that this area is intended to be protected. If this area is to be reviewed periodically, then it's use can be changed to allow development or roads. 55% permanent protection is not sufficient and if road development and resource extraction is allowed in the the WA area shown, it's impact on the environment is far to great. More SMA is needed.
Concept A
Naming this massive area "Restricted use wilderness area" only serves once again to mislead the public. The RUWA offers no true protection for the environment. If new land uses are accorded, even at 0.2% (what does that work out to in square km's?... significant portions of land), then what is stopping development from criss-crossing the area and disturbing wildlife corridors?
Concept B
Again, not nearly enough protected area. This is a an open invitation to pillage our environment.
Concept C
The RUWA area should be PA! RUWA offers no true protection of the land.
Concept D
The ecologically important areas within the RUWA must have far greater protection. This area should be a PA, period.
Summary
Please think of our environmental future and protect a greater portion of the Peel by granting PA designation to at least 80%.
RUWA
RUWA is a misleading term. This designation does not truly protect important ecological, wilderness areas. You can not allow resource development and claim to "protect the values in an area".
265. Website Submission at 10:02 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I support both the process and the findings of the final recommended plan. There was an exhaustive process that arrived at a plan based on the input gathered during that process.
Concept A
I am concerned that the proposed concepts A, B, C, and D are variations on a theme which reduce the area of protected area and provide a semblance of protection for significant waterways without protecting the areas around those waterways thus falsely assuming that those waterways, as well as the flora and fauna therein, exist in separation. They are all connected and all need to be protected.
Concept B
I am concerned that the proposed concepts A, B, C, and D are variations on a theme which reduce the area of protected area and provide a semblance of protection for significant waterways without protecting the areas around those waterways thus falsely assuming that those waterways, as well as the flora and fauna therein, exist in separation. They are all connected and all need to be protected.
Concept C
I am concerned that the proposed concepts A, B, C, and D are variations on a theme which reduce the area of protected area and provide a semblance of protection for significant waterways without protecting the areas around those waterways thus falsely assuming that those waterways, as well as the flora and fauna therein, exist in separation. They are all connected and all need to be protected.
Concept D
I am concerned that the proposed concepts A, B, C, and D are variations on a theme which reduce the area of protected area and provide a semblance of protection for significant waterways without protecting the areas around those waterways thus falsely assuming that those waterways, as well as the flora and fauna therein, exist in separation. They are all connected and all need to be protected.
Summary
I strongly encourage the government to accept the Final Recommended Plan, both to quickly begin the process of protecting the areas in question and to accurately govern according to the findings of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
266. Website Submission at 10:43 PM
Summary
I have recently moved to the territory and from everything I have heard over the past many, many years, most Yukoners want protection of the Peel Watershed. I find this information extremely detailed and difficult to understand but the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned is, protect the ecological resources and use the precautionary principle. Listen to the First Nations and do not water down, excuse the pun, the protection of one of the last great unpolluted watersheds in our country.
on January 20, 2013
267. Website Submission at 3:19 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am concerned that the colours used in these maps are very misleading to the public. the areas in green, which one would expect to equal protection are in fact not protected. The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be honoured.
Concept A
Creating new designations specifically for the Peel watershed is very confusing for the public and makes any meaningful consultation difficult. I believe the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be followed.
Concept B
Again the colours are misleading. This map, and all others used on this website, indicate that Tombstone Territorial Park would be protected under the same designation as the Protected Area (PA) regions of the greater Peel Watershed. Very confusing. The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be followed.
Concept C
The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be followed.
Concept D
This is undemocratic and some say, illegal. In order for the Government of Yukon to have any legitimacy the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be followed.
Summary
The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be honoured. I disagree with all the maps and concepts presented within this website. Designations are misleading and information is conflicting.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not agree with the new designations offered by the Government of Yukon.
LUD
The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan should be honoured. I propose the Government of Yukon abandon this false consultation and instead follow the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
268. Website Submission at 9:38 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Like many Yukoners, the original Final Recommended Plan is the plan that appeals to me. 80% protection.
I am extremely concerned with the fact that this government has decided to blatantly ignore the voices of Yukoners and First Nations by ignoring the recommendations outlined in the original Final Recommended Plan, and is instead wasting time and money by entering into another round of consultations simply because they didn't like the answer they got the first time.
There are not many pristine wilderness areas left in this country. Why must the Yukon government be so set on exposing the Peel Region to the destruction of resource extraction?
By opening up this area to mining I am concerned about waterways, wildlife, biodivesity, and much, much more.
Concept A
I find this concept disturbing, as this concept greatly reduces the percentage of protected areas to be permanently withdrawn from any new land uses.
Nothing about his concept appeals to me.
The concept that appeals to me is the original recommended plan calling for 80% protection.
Concept B
Again, this concept concerns me due to the significant reduction of protected areas that will be permanently withdrawn from any new land uses.
Nothing about this concept appeals to me. I stand by the original recommended plan calling for 80% protection.
Concept C
Again, I stand by the original final recommended plan calling for 80% protection of the Peel Region.
Concept D
Again, I stand by the original final recommended plan calling for 80% protection of the Peel Region.
LUD
Like a great number of Yukon residents, I feel extremely frustrated and angry with the Yukon government for the way they have blatantly ignored and disrespected the Yukon people's wish to have 80% of the Peel region protected as was stated in the Final Recommended Plan.
Entering into this second round of consultations is a complete waste of time and money. Yukon people, including First Nations, have already spoken. Our voices resulted in the recommendation for 80% protection in the Peel Region and the government has blatantly ignored this recommendation.
on January 21, 2013
269. Website Submission at 5:16 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the original version of the Peel Plan that proposed 80% of the Peel Watershed be fully protected as an SMA.
Concept A
I am concerned with the amount of development potential proposed by this recommended plan. The amount of area where Oil and Gas, Mineral exploration/mining is being considered and potentially allowed in these land use models is too much. I support the original Peel commission's proposal to protect 80% of the Peel River Watershed.
Concept B
The concerns of the FN people who are responsible for these areas, as reflected in the Land Claims Agreements, are not being respected. Much of the Peel River Watershed is FN TT, it is constitutionally stated that this Land has been given back to the rightful aboriginal owners.
Concept D
No development should be considered along the river corridors, these rivers should all be 100% Protected Areas.
270. Website Submission at 8:31 PM
Concept D
I support the balanced approach of economic opportunities and wilderness protection proposed by the government!
271. Website Submission at 8:52 PM
Concept B
new concepts provide protection and chances for responsible development.
I support this
Concept D
I support the balanced approach of economic opportunities and wilderness protection proposed by the government!
272. Website Submission at 11:21 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like that this is a cautious approach with a lot of protection to start with but the possibility of reassessing some areas later.
Concept A
This plan seems to leave the least amount of area protected. I appreciate that most of the area will be actively managed but I think it leaves too much available for poor management choices down the road...
Concept B
I like that there is more protection. But I still think it's a bit too open for future exploitation.
Concept C
I like the larger amount of protected area in this plan. It's nice to see a larger continous range of protection along the east side of the map.
I would like to see an increase in the river corridor zones rather than the reduction compared to concept B.
Concept D
This concept has a larger % are that is protected, which I like, but I am concerned about the big break in the protected area on the eastern edge compared to concept C. As well, I am concerned about the reduction in river corridor zones compared to concept A&B.
I don't understand how region 6 is worth being protected in this concept, while it's not worth protecting in the previous concept.
Summary
There seems to be some odd inconsistencies between the plans. If an area is worth protecting in one concept then why wouldn't it be worth protecting in all of the concepts? Either the area has ecological value or it doesn't. It can't change just because we want to move colours around on a map.
I do like the aspects of each concept. Ideally, I would like to see the "Protected Areas" of concept C & D combined while maintaining the river corridors of concept A&B. I think this would offer large, continuous protected areas while still leaving a large segment available as RUWA.
Sentimentally, I do like the final Recommended plan the best, but ideally I think more solid data is needed before any of these plans can be called suitable.
Thank you for considering my comments.
RUWA
I think the key will be research and data. Independent studies need to be carried out to assess what impact any sort of activity may have on the area. It's okay if it takes time - the minerals aren't going anywhere but hard data is required in order to ensure that land use is managed properly.
As well, it will be necessary to have some sort of monitoring/enforcement capability to ensure that everything is being reported accurately by the users in the area.
LUD
I think that if the "protected area" is truly going to be protected, it would be ideal if it could also be protected from "existing rights". I like that no new uses will be permitted but without knowing what the "existing rights" include, it's hard to know how much protection there really will be.
on January 22, 2013
273. Website Submission at 6:36 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I agree with and support this plan. I think Yukon government should accept it.
Concept A
Not adequate protection.
Concept B
Not adequate protection.
Concept C
Not adequate protection.
Concept D
Not adequate protection.
Summary
I've had the priviledge of canoeing down the Wind River and feel that the Peel River Watershed is very environmentally and culturally significant. I fully support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and hope the Yukon government will aceept the plan as submitted.
RUWA
I do not believe that the new RUWA designation will adequately protect this environmentally and culturally significant area. I support The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and hope Yukon government will accept that plan. During the last consultation regarding the Peel Planning Commission's final recommended plan, 78% of Yukoners supported the plan. I feel that Yukon government should respect this and accept the final recommended plan as is.
LUD
Yes, my suggestion is to please accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan as it was submitted to Yukon government.
274. Website Submission at 9:06 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the plan that I endorse. YOU SHOULD TOO. YOU are representing the people. THIS PLan took over six years to create with TONS of input. It is what I want and what you should want too.
Concept A
I don't like this. The river corridors don't cut it.
Concept B
Nope. Doesn't work for me
Concept C
Lacks something....hum. Nope don't like it. I like the FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN.
Concept D
NOT WHAT I WANT FOR THE YUKON.
Summary
GET WITH THE PROGRAMME...THE FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN IS IT. YOUR CONCEPTS A TO D ARE EMBARRASSING.
RUWA
I find your colours on your concept maps deceiving or deceitful. I don't like the terms you are using for land use designations.
LUD
I propose that you use the FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN from the commission, that would be simpler and clear. How are members of the community able to access what type of feed back you are receiving? How are you being open and transparent? How do people access my feedback to see where I stand on this issue?
275. Website Submission at 9:27 PM
Final Recommended Plan
it is the outcome of a 6 yr consultative process and significant investment of time and money. The compromises represented reflect that consultation. This is the only legitimate plan. Existing active rights were protected.
Concept A
That the proposed land use designations are arbitrary and not based on any form of consultation. Rather it ignores legitimate democratic consultative process. Difficult to understand why...
Concept B
there is one legitimate plan the final recommended plan. It reflects the consensus of those who participated, including the Yukon Government. Time to honor democracy, even when it doesn't deliver exactly what you want.
Concept C
Skinny corridors of protection don't work. They don't protect the areas under discussion. t
That approach was attempted with clear cut logging - as long as it was out of immediate site line of road, that is supposed to make it ok??? Illogical.
Concept D
No concept is going to achieve the protection of the area that so many people want to see. It is a government without any long term vision that would consider anything but the Final Recommended Plan!!
Summary
This area is of tremendous value in its natural state. Mineral extraction is not compatible with protection. Should developments change in the future the Plan can be re-negotiated. Why do it now and risk irreparable harm. Shame!
RUWA
the only way to protect the values is to implement the plan that was the result of a 6 year consultation.
LUD
the plan noted above determined the designations for the land after a lengthy consultative process. There is no need for additional designations. the original plan contemplated changes that might become necessary later when technologies improve and damage to wilderness can be limited.
276. Website Submission at 9:47 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Agree with this plan
Concept A
Disagree with this plan. Enables too much development
Concept B
Disagree with this plan. Enables too much development
Concept C
Disagree with this plan. Enables too much development.
Concept D
See ansers to Concepts A, B and C. Same applies
Summary
It is difficult to review the material in this consultation. I suspect that is a problem that will inhibit response.
RUWA
I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Plan. I support the process by which it was achieved and commend the compromises that were reached during that process. I do not support any of the options developed by the Government of Yukon as alternatives to the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
The RUWA and RUWA Wilderness River Corridor concepts seem bogus. They are really a way of enabling development under the name of 'wilderness'.
on January 23, 2013
277. Website Submission at 9:54 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I am concerned that too much territory is being placed in the Protected Area. I believe we should ensure significant land is protected for future generations and for heritage reasons but this has to be balanced with allowances for future development to help secure our economic future and reduce reliance on the Federal Government. We are clearly a resource based and tourist based economy and these industries both have to be supported.
Concept A
In my opinion too little protected area.
Concept B
Too little protected area.
Concept C
Probably getting close to what makes most sense to me.
Concept D
This may ultimately may be too restrictive with too much protected area.
Summary
The Yukon is a long ways from from becoming economically self sufficient. I believe Yukoners want to become less reliant on on the handouts from the federal government. They also want to ensure that we also will continue living in a magical land that is not laid waste by the the resource industry. A delicate balance but it is the only way forward.
RUWA
I support the changes to the Land Use Designations. This change should improve the number of options available and thus make compromises between competing interests more palatable to them.
278. Website Submission at 12:16 PM
Final Recommended Plan
After looking at Concept A, B, C and D I recommend adopting the final recommended plan. I trust that the public consultation process was rigorous and widespread. To me it represents how most Yukoners would like to see this area developed. As a 30 year resident of the Yukon I strongly endorse and support the Final Recommended Plan.
279. Website Submission at 1:38 PM
Concept A
Isupport the balance approach of economy and protection the government is proposing
280. Website Submission at 3:55 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan for the Peel Watershed because it is the result of more than six years of land use planning involving First Nations, the public, AND Yukon Government, as required by the Umbrella Final Agreement. It is a truly balanced approach, with 55% being fully protected; allowing for 20% development; and placing 25% under interim protection (subject to review in 10 yrs). This plan already represents compromise on all sides and preserves future options.
Concept A
Proposed areas 11,12, 14 seem to allow roads; proposed protected area 2 and that in southeast area allow for roads and development; river corridors permit roads and development of existing claims; integrated mgmt areas allow for roads , new mineral and gas activity and development. Precious little is truly protected or left for the future,
Concept B
See the previous response, most of which applies here as well.
Concept C
I refer to my response to Concept A. Again, protections are drastically reduced, the emphasis is clearly on development.
Concept D
The worst concept yet, permitting the greatest development and irreparable damage to the Peel Watershed/
on January 25, 2013
281. Website Submission at 9:20 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the Final recommended plan, particularly the no road access restriction.
Concept A
I like the final recommended plan.
Concept B
My concern is that the government seems reluctant to accept the final recommended plan.
Concept C
Accept the final recommended plan.
Concept D
Road access concerns me. Accept the final recommended plan.
Summary
Do the right thing, in the interests of democray, the Yukon people and its land for generations to come, and accept the final recommended plan.
RUWA
I think the designation is a misnomer, vague and misleading. In particular, I don't like the idea of allowing for road access.
LUD
Do not allow road access.
Accept the Final Recommeded Plan by the commission.
282. Website Submission at 12:07 PM
RUWA
I am in favor for as much mutli use as possible while respecting the land. Exploration and private development should not be excluded from the area as it can be managed in a reasonable manor with the proposed guidance on this website
283. Website Submission at 1:21 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Protection of large natural areas. It was developed by the people in the region and it reflects their views. Yukon doesn't like it when Ottawa made decisions on our behalf, how do you think the FNs and people in this area feel when we try to replan their work?
Concept A
There is very little guaranteed protection. Actively managed in RUWA still may mean developed.
Concept B
I don't see much of a change here.
Concept C
More protection, good. It seems to me that the northern peoples wanted more protection, so why don't we give it to them?
Concept D
I don't have the experience to say this is better or worse than the other concepts, what would the northern people want - give it to them.
RUWA
The existing land use designation IMA can be tailored to include these areas, it is not sensible to add new categories, it honestly just muddies the water.
LUD
Our northern communities and FNs have already made a good point and created a good (not flawless at all, but good) plan. If you stick with the existing plan you will have something that future generations will cherish, we should not be making decisions in Whitehorse to the detriment of those in the area, and we should realize that other regional planning will encompass substantially more mining. Quite meddling Brad.
284. Website Submission at 6:26 PM
LUD
I believe that with the proper permitting and procedures, already in place in the rest of the Yukon, that the Peel watershed should not be barred from roads or exploration. I understand that there are ares sensitive to development in the Peel watershed, however that is where YESAB and other case by case environmental studies will help develop plans to mitigate any risks.
on January 26, 2013
285. Website Submission at 11:22 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I think the idea of having a percentage of permanently protected land is extremely important. My concerns would come with how the 25% interim land protection will play out. Will there be public consultation when the decision is made to how this land will be used? Will there be true transparency on how the 20% will be used?
Concept A
I like the fact that key areas (Hart, Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake Rivers) have been withdrawn from the new land use designation. I also like the fact that the plan recognizes key First Nations values.
Concept D
I have concerns about the existing mineral interests in the Snake River area and hope the plan truly "actively" manages" the activity in this area.
286. Website Submission at 2:02 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I have lived in the Yukon for the past 43 years. I was raised in Faro. I support mining in our Territory. I am not a member of any political party nor any lobby group. I have voted for the Yukon Party in the past. However, I STRONGLY believe that the current government should accept the Final Recommended Plan as it stands. I am not alone in this belief.
Concept A
not enough protection for the river areas
Concept B
not enough protection for the river areas
Concept C
not enough protection for the river areas
Concept D
not enough protection for the river areas
287. Website Submission at 6:26 PM
Summary
I am very very disappointed and how this government has manipulated Yukonners. During the election campaign we were told that the Yukon Party could not say what actions they would take in regards to the plan. Then after being elected, it proposed the four “concepts” included in this website AFTER the final recommendations from the Peel Watershed Commission was submitted. This is so disappointing. Unless the Yukon Party decides to accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan, you may no longer count on my support.
In my opinion, if the government commissioned the Peel Watershed Planning Commission to come up with a final recommended plan, it should adopt it. The commission was a six year process, with input from all. It was a fair process and needs to be respected. By proposing changes to the plan, the Yukon government is not respecting its agreement.
I believe that 100 percent of the Peel Watershed should be protected. I have participated in the Peel Watershed consultation process held by the Commission. I agree with the final recommendation, even if it is not exactly what I want and feel is best. The Yukon Government seem unable to compromise. Instead of accepting the recommendation, it wants to make changes.
Let conserve the largest part of the Peel as possible. We have plenty of other areas we can mine. In the Keno Hill Silver District, a company is re-mining old sites, and therefore not creating new roads, new disturbances. Close to Whitehorse, a company is trying to re-mine old tailings. They will not affect pristine lands either. We can extract resources from areas that are already disturbed. The Yukon is vast. Yes, let’s promote industry, but let's choose wisely, WHERE we allow it to be done. WE CAN NEVER GO BACK. Once we build a road, it affects that area forever. Please, please, recognize the value of protecting some of land, respect your engagements, and accept the Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan as is.
RUWA
I think that having a designation that pertains to protecting values in the area while allowing surface and new land uses is rather poor. Allowing surface access, and use, not matter how it is regulated will affect the land. I deeply feel and strongly believe that the Yukon Government should act diplomatically, ethically and respectfully by implementing the Peel Watershed plan as it has been recommended.
LUD
Yes, I do. Please stop wasting our resources trying to re-invent the wheel. Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
on January 27, 2013
288. Website Submission at 9:55 PM
RUWA
J'appuie les propositions du plan original.
J,appuie également les demandent des Premières Nations de la région qui sera affectée.
LUD
suivre le processus de planification de l’aménagement du territoire du bassin hydrographique de la rivière Peel comme le plan produit par la commission indépendante.
289. Website Submission at 11:49 PM
Concept B
This map seems to present a reasonable and balanced approach to the land use planning within the region
290. Website Submission at 11:51 PM
Concept B
This map seems to present a reasonable and balanced approach to the land use planning within the region
Concept C
I think this concept shows a balanced approach to land use planning in the Peel Region
on January 28, 2013
291. Website Submission at 8:27 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the original Final Recommended Plan.The Final Plan was crafted through a consultative process with representation from all aspects of interested groups.
I would like to see the Tombstones more protected but they were not part of the area the planning commission was reviewing and the current govt added tis area in to soften the blow of the changes they are proposing
The plan could go further and ensure the entire area is completely protected from mineral development but it is a compromise.
This current government reminds me of the seperatists in Quebec continuing to vote to separate. This gov't does not like the plan so they keep changing it and I am sure that they will continue to propose new Plans until they get what they want and the public gets tired of continuing to say NO.
This plan took 7 years of consultation. The govt has taken only a few mons to pull out of a hat 4 "other" plans that completely undermine the original document with the feeble excuse that there wasn't good consultation when the Final plan was put forth for discussion.
Concept A
The watered down and weakened protection offered.The SMA is non existent! RUMA= potential for mineral use and development=NOT protected.
Concept B
The watered down and weakened protection offered.The SMA is non existent! RUMA= potential for mineral use and development=NOT protected. is weakened and more development.
Rivers protected only by small corridors= potential for disruption of wildlife and impact of development
Concept C
The watered down and weakened protection offered.The SMA is non existent! RUMA= potential for mineral use and development=NOT protected. is weakened and more development.
More potential for development in northern area with change of 10 to IMA Zone 2
Concept D
Again, the original protection is weakened.
RUWA
The RUWA designation was created to allow this current govt to open the door for increased mining and oil and gas within the Peel watershed. The Final Plan, created through consultation, did not want development in this area hence the SMA.
This new designation will certainly allow the current govt to do what it wants in this area.
LUD
Yes. Go back to the Final Recommendations from the Peel Planning Commission.
292. Website Submission at 8:59 PM
Final Recommended Plan
democratic, fair, balanced
Concept A
not good enough, disregards 6 years of public consulatation
Concept B
not good enough, disregards 6 years of public consulatation
Concept C
not good enough, disregards 6 years of public consulatation
Concept D
not good enough, disregards 6 years of public consulatation
RUWA
Your new concepts are a betrayal of the Yukon people.
LUD
The Peel commissions proposal is balanced, fair, and has been established through a democratic process. Please respect it.
293. Website Submission at 9:51 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the best compromise with all required input.
Concept A
Not acceptable
Concept B
Not acceptable
Concept C
Not acceptable
Concept D
Not acceptable
RUWA
Implement the final submission of the Peel Planning Commission
LUD
I would like to see the land use designations as recommended by the Peel Planning Commission,
294. Website Submission at 10:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I approve of this plan, based on the fact that Yukoners participated fully in its development. I believe that additional resource extraction based exploration would be highly speculative with little real benefit to Yukon's economic prosperity. At the same time, such exploration has in the past, and would in the future adversely affect those values which are reflected in the original recommended plan.
RUWA
The RUWA designation appears to provide nothing more than what is currently available under existing permitting processes. Those processes have failed to adequately protect the values that area residents and the majority of Yukoners hold for this area. I do not believe that the RUWA designation will achieve the stated goal. My only suggestion would be to abandon the RUWA designation in favour of the Protected Area designation, as per the original Planning Commission recommendations.
LUD
Please see comment, above.
on January 29, 2013
295. Website Submission at 1:24 PM
Summary
I want to see a balanced plan that sees vital/sensative areas protected and other areas avaliable for social and economic oportunities. The original plan as proposed was not a balanced one.
on January 30, 2013
296. Website Submission at 9:22 AM
Concept D
I would prefer to see Concept D, I as think it best reflects both the conservation values while maintaing REAL access to existing mineral claims.
RUWA
Mandatory reporting of Class 1 activites is a good move.
LUD
I prefer these to the limited nature of the protected area in the final recommended plan, marking all those areas green made them seem like they are undisturbed, but there a road, and cat trails everywhere...
297. Website Submission at 9:24 AM
Concept D
I prefer Concept D as it best reflects the conservation values, while maintaining ACTUAL access to mineral claims.
RUWA
Mandatory reporting of Class 1 activites is a good move.
LUD
I prefer these to the limited nature of the protected area in the final recommended plan, marking all those areas green made them seem like they are undisturbed, but there a road, and cat trails everywhere...
on February 1, 2013
298. Website Submission at 11:21 AM
Final Recommended Plan
decision for mineral or oil/gas should be done on case by case basis for entire subject area
Concept A
best for economical and first nations
Concept B
No
Concept C
No
Concept D
Best to maintain existing and encourage future mineral exploration, protect Hart area
RUWA
agreed
LUD
agreed
299. Website Submission at 1:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like this plan and see it in its entirety as a reasonable compromise.
I wanted strongly to see the Blackstone River protected, as a SMA, but can accept the level of protection in this plan.
Concept A
This does NOT appeal to me.
Concept B
This does NOT appeal to me.
Concept C
This does NOT appeal to me.
Concept D
This does NOT appeal to me.
Summary
Please, for the sake of our children's air, water, heritage and future (and for the sake of the incalculable value of intact watersheds), accept the Peel Commission's Final Recommended Plan. This is the only responsible solution to land management in the Peel Watershed and to turn our backs on it makes the Yukon Government irresponsible and out-of-touch with Yukon citizens. Please listen to reason (and not corporate dollars), on this issue.
RUWA
I do not like this land use designation and don't feel it will add to land use planning in a sustainable way in Yukon. I do not feel the use of the word 'wilderness' is accurate or adequate in describing what activities can take place in these areas. I find it to be a deliberately confusing designation and feel it should be eliminated.
LUD
I suggest a return to the land use designations and allocations in the Peel Commission's Final Recommended Plan for the Peel Watershed. This compromise plan reflected Yukoners' feedback including my own and is a balanced way to manage this area and resources for the future.
300. Website Submission at 7:46 PM
Summary
I have already carefully given my feedback to the Peel Land Use Planning Commission. I urge the Yukon Government to accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions' Final Recommended Plan that will protect 80% of the area. It is what the people want. They studied this for 6+ years. Why are you wasting everyone's time with this underhanded second process?
on February 2, 2013
301. Website Submission at 3:56 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I would like to see 100% protection, but will accept the Commission's original Land Use Plan of 80% protection.
Concept C
same as before
Summary
NO Mining!
RUWA
I DO NOT agree with YG's new revised plan.
I ACCEPT the Commission's Land Use Plan for the Peel Watershed for 80% protection.
302. Website Submission at 12:56 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The protection of large areas is good for actually protecting ecological (and therefore recreation) values! This is the opposite of protecting only small, scattered areas - a concept that makes no sense in regard to the protection of an ecosystem.
My concern is that the government will never agree to a plan with this much protection, despite its merits and benefits. This region in particular is special and deserves attention and consideration that meets its unique values.
Concept A
There are nowhere near enough protected areas in this concept! This proposes protection for aesthetic values only and does not consider the ecosystem(s) as a whole.
Concept B
As a general comment, this interactive map is very skewed to favour the exploitation of non-renewable resources. The entire region is 100% covered when the "Non-Renewable Resource Values" overlay is applied, whereas the other views are scattered and minimal. Your overlay of the area between the Wind and Hart Rivers show that there are almost no Ecological and Conservation Values. I find that very hard to believe and can't help to think that this is a very biased point of view. There are very precise details when it comes to all maps, except for Non-Renewable Resource values, which simply covers the whole region. I'm sure there is better, more precise information available to tell which areas hold more promise than others, or which areas are more likely to be exploited.
Concept C
I like the concept of protecting an entire watershed, which is the case here for the Snake River. This would allow connectivity between wildlife habitats and it would help to ensure the integrity of the water in the area.
Concept D
I like the protected areas adjacent to Tombstone and in areas around the Snake and Hart River.
I don't like that there are large gaps in the protection of areas surrounding the Wind, Bonnet-Plume and Snake Rivers.
I don't like that the RUWA is used to imply protection but in fact allows development and is essentially another IMA with more restrictions. What is the difference between here?
RUWA
The problem I see with this type of protection is that, although restrictions may be set on development, they are difficult to enforce given the limited capacity of the personnel who oversee compliance. How can you assure that if the protections that are in place are being infringed upon that they will be detected and addressed?
If the area in question has values that merit protection, I prefer to protect them instead of using this method that implies protection but allows exploitation.
LUD
River corridors are limited in their protection of ecological values. Tourists paddling a river will be able to see beautiful mountains and clear water, but how will the fish and wildlife fare under this "protection of wilderness character?" This is a facade that is akin to British Columbia's method of leaving most forests in tact if they are near a highway corridor but clear-cutting everything that cannot be seen from the main roads. In order to actually protect ecological values, an ecosystem approach must be taken. This involves protecting more than a thin sliver that may be exploited on all sides.
If the interactive map is viewed with the Ecological & Conservation Values highlighted, it is obvious that there are important areas scattered throughout the region. For many species, these patches of habitat require connectivity, something that is not addressed by the RUWA and river corridor designation.
I think the proper approach here is to follow the recommended plan's method of using protected areas that encompass a variety of ecosystems and will be effective in preserving the values that they are designed to.
303. Website Submission at 11:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the fact that there are options though i prefer 100% protection in the area.
Concept A
No aspects appeal to me
Concept B
No aspects appeal to me
Concept C
No aspects appeal to me
Concept D
No aspects appeal to me
on February 4, 2013
304. Website Submission at 11:07 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
Concept A
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
Concept B
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
Concept C
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
Concept D
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
Summary
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
RUWA
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
LUD
Protect the entire Peel Watershed for a 10 year period. In 2023 begin a new review with all stakeholders and follow their recommendations.
305. Website Submission at 9:55 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I prefer this plan. It protects large contiguous areas but still leaves the option of opening up areas at a later date.
This plan was also arrived at by a consensus of stakeholders and by that merit alone should be prefered.
RUWA
See Below.
LUD
I think that you should stick with the original Peel Commission plan, It has a broad base of support and provides a reasonable compromise between conservation and resource development. This unilateral process is flawed and undemocratic and should be abandoned.
on February 5, 2013
306. Website Submission at 5:28 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Pros: The concept of having a variety of land uses or IMA.
Cons: The IMA designation should apply to the whole area not just 20%. Permanent withdrawal of 80% of the land without even knowing what is there in terms of mineral potential is unjustified.
Concept A
Pros: I like the idea of active management to reduce conflicts. Existing mineral rights need to be recognized.
Cons: The size of the area permanently withdrawn from any new uses is too large.
I am also concerned with the definition of RUWA. It appears to be far too restrictive for any type of development.
Concept B
Pros: same as above
cons: This concept is less appealling because it has more Protected areas than Concept A
Concept C
Pros: same as above
Cons: The size of the protected area is greater than Concepts A and B. Once again, how can we permanently withdraw these large areas?
Concept D
Pros: Same as above
Cons: This concept appears to have more protected area than A, B, or C. Therefore, it is the most disturbing concept.
Summary
Concept A provides for large protected areas, however it is better than the "Final Recommended Plan"
RUWA
I like the idea of actively managing all land uses while protecting values in an area.
I am concerned that the definition is too restrictive for development.
LUD
Roads must be allowed to access mineral claims. I am concerned with the idea of limiting surface disturbance to 0.2% of the area. This may or may not be adequate. There may be other concerns as well. I have not read all the details.
on February 6, 2013
307. Website Submission at 11:33 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan, while fairly restrictive, is at least straightforward, allows for future changes to the designations of about half the area, and most importantly, has a legal basis in the mandate of the Peel Planning Commission.
It should be accepted as it was presented
Concept A
The new concepts will create uncertainty and instigate lawsuits. They should be withdrawn.
Concept B
The new concepts will create uncertainty and instigate lawsuits. They should be withdrawn.
Concept C
The new concepts will create uncertainty and instigate lawsuits. They should be withdrawn.
Concept D
The new concepts will create uncertainty and instigate lawsuits. They should be withdrawn.
Summary
The Final Recommended Plan, as drawn up by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission, should be accepted and implemented in its entirety. The concepts put forward by the Yukon Government should be withdrawn.
I work in the exploration industry, and my income is tied to its success. Accepting the recommended plan is the only course of action that will provide any certainty in the industry. By ignoring it, the government will leave itself open to lawsuits from the First Nations, which will undoubtedly drag out for years, while costing Yukon taxpayers hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile, exploration companies will wait and watch, spending their money in other parts of the world where they can either deal directly with the first nations and come to an agreement, or where land use plans are already in place, and can be counted upon.
By challenging the Peel land use plan, the government will also call into question the integrity of other land use plans. The Dawson Regional Planning Commission is just starting their work. Should investors interested in the White Gold area, for example, hold onto their money until the plan is completed and implemented, just in case the Yukon Government decides to step in to modify that plan as well? Maybe the government can get industry a better deal after years of litigation, but maybe not. Meanwhile, we will all pay the price.
By stepping in to modify the plan, the government will create years of uncertainty. That is bad for business, and bad for Yukoners.
RUWA
By adding the two new designations, the govenment muddies the waters. The titles make them sound like protected areas, but the descriptions seem to say that exploration and industry can continue to take place subject to permiting, as is already the case in the rest of the Yukon.
LUD
There was no need to demand the modification of the original plan. Now the Final Recomended Plan is being modified with these new designations. This will lead to a protracted court case which will only benifit lawyers.
on February 7, 2013
308. Website Submission at 9:18 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission if you (the Yukon Party Government) are serious about participatory democracy; if not please stop this charade at consultation and just admit that the decision to develop the whole watershed had been made already.
Concept A
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept B
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept C
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept D
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Summary
Please follow the recommendation of the Peel Planning Commission.
RUWA
Follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission: If the Yukon Party Government is serious about the collective will for the Peel Watershed, put the issue to a referendum.
LUD
When you look past the spin, the Yukon Party Government Plan effectively opens the whole Peel Watershed to development and years of costly litigation by the First Nations. The past environmental reality at Faro,United Keno Hill Mines and now Alexco indicate that the development of the Peel will be different in reality to whatever is promised.
309. Website Submission at 9:32 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Concern:
Neglects the NEED to use resources available in the Peel watershed.
Limits surface and subsurface rights to IMA zones, which are VERY small.
WA zone is unclear, 'interim' protection lacking clear planning or intention.
Not a sustainable use of resources in the area.
Appeal:
"Spirit" of the UFA consultation process, conservation goal, however poorly executed.
Concept A
Appeal:
Areas are accessible to industrial development.
Surface and sub-surface rights are allowed (with mandatory reporting of Class 1 activities).
Concern:
Assumption that river corridors are among the areas of most importance to a river.
Concept B
Appeal:
Areas around existing protected land (Tombstone Territorial Park) are designated PA, including the lower reaches of the Peel.
Concern:
Upper reaches of the Snake and Bonnett Plume are only preserved. Why not extend this approach to the upper reaches of the Wind and Hart rivers?
Concept C
Appeal:
PA designation of Snake river and lower reaches of the Peel.
Concern:
Upper reaches of Wind and Hart rivers are subject to RUWA designtion, unlike the Snake.
Concept D
Appeal:
Additional PA designation on the Hart River, maximimizes 'corridor' from Tombstone.
Concern:
Bisection of Snake River watershed with RUWA designation, rather than PA.
Summary
Explore the idea of 'special' designations of land uses to Canadian/FN developers for surface and subsurface rights.
310. Website Submission at 10:05 AM
Final Recommended Plan
80% protection of the Peel watershed - i.e. no development, no mining or exploration
Concept A
Your designations and plan are a combination of smoke & mirrors with misuse of terms and deceptive double speak.
Concept B
We need to protect this pristine area from oil, gas and mining exploration. You are not following the UFA and you are betraying the First Nations.
Concept C
Protection means NO exploration or development.
Concept D
This consultation is a sham designed to confuse.
Summary
Just follow the existing plan put forward by the Commission after years of meaningful consultation.
RUWA
I think the government should follow the recommendations made in the final recommended plan for the Peel watershed made by the seven year process of the Peel Planning Commission. This consultation is a sham and is being used to befuddle the public.
LUD
I think the Peel watershed should be 100% protected but will accept the compromise with 80% protection recommended by the Peel Planning Commission.
311. Website Submission at 9:32 PM
Final Recommended Plan
In my opinion the recommended plan is not balanced.
LUD
I support the government's proposed tools.
312. Website Submission at 9:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The whole thing concerns me for the reasons I already mentioned. It's easier to get forgiveness than permission and what's going to happen to violators, even if the new plan is toothy enough to protect if it were followed? Who is double checking, and once the big money is made, are you going to take it back from the shareholders if there was rule breaking. I've worked in the oil patch, I know what happens to people who tell a consultant no you can't do that.
Concept A
It all concerns me, because I think that it is bedazzlement, aimed at making Yukoners ignore their better judgement
Concept B
Dito
Concept C
dito
RUWA
I personally think everybody loses when the government tries to make everybody happy. If you "value" an area you act like you do. If you mine an area you value its resources only, not its future.
You can't please everybody, and, in my view, trying to do so is a sign that somebody is under pressure to do something they know they shouldn't.
LUD
I would like to know exactly what "higher standards" for reclamation of minerals would be. I would like to know who is setting the standards who is enforcing them, what the penalties for failure to follow the standards might entail. Are these standards something that subsequent government can just quietly change without notice. Failure to protect is permanent failure, look at the Klondike River Valley near Dawson. Once the Peel Area is disturbed, it will take longer than our lives to return, if it ever does. And .2% of a place that big is an awful lot of ground. (More then the mouth of the klondike.) I think the words got shuffled and the map redrawn, and no real protection is every intended to happen, in fact.
on February 8, 2013
313. Website Submission at 8:00 PM
LUD
It is incredible and offensive that a small number of elitists want to lock up our territory as their personal playground! Mining and related industrial activity has consistently built nations and societies. Appropriately managed mining and other activity is entirely appropriate.
314. Website Submission at 8:12 PM
Concept D
I feel that concept A should be used
RUWA
yes, the areas either side the river in the peel river area should be protected from exploration, mining and other land use issues, including wilderness guiders setting up camps.
LUD
I feel the changes to the proposed landuse designations is correct. This allows for wilderness enjoyment and well as opening some of the area for the neceassary economic development.
315. Website Submission at 8:26 PM
Final Recommended Plan
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
Concept A
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
Concept B
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
Concept C
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
Concept D
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
Summary
Did I mention YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
RUWA
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
LUD
YG should accept the Peel commission's final recommended land use plan.
316. Website Submission at 9:34 PM
Final Recommended Plan
There is no room for mineral exploration to take place in a timely manner, Mining as a use of the land is discouraged even though it is a temporary use of the land. Blocking off access to quartz claims without compensation to current claim holders is essentially expropriation without compensation. I don't see the need for the elimination of exploration and possibly mining in the future after all at least 50 years of exploration have taken place when reguluations were few - the land is still pristine according to local first nations and preservationists - even Dr. Suzuki says so. I think with modern exploration and mining methods their impacts on the environment will be minimal compared to the benifits we as Yukoners will accure.
Concept A
Concept A is bad but not as bad as the rest so by default I vote for concept A
on February 9, 2013
317. Website Submission at 7:12 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I trust this vision for the landscape because it is the result of a a thoughtful, protracted, well-paced consultation wherein all Yukoners had opportunity to consider and digest a vast amount of information, and discuss and express their views.
The current consultation process is rife with conflict, and is forcing people to digest and consider new concepts and acronyms under a very stressful regime and in a compressed time frame - all of which feels like a duplication of what was already well done.
I can't see the reason for rejecting this plan when hundreds of Yukoners, including those with the required expertise and knowledge, have put their best work into it and have came to concensus.
The final agreement does say that YG has the final say, however this YG process feels like bullying - it clearly flies in the face of the 'intent' of Chapter 11. Parties went through that planning process with faith that the commission could and would and did, do their job well. THe final recommended plan is what Yukoners asked for in that very excellent process. This YG process is insulting, is pandering to one interest group, and is a waste of our tax dollars.
318. Website Submission at 9:40 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I believe this is a balanced plan.
Summary
I believe the Yukon Government will act in our best interests in this regard.
The resourses need to be shared between tourism and mining.
319. Website Submission at 10:37 AM
RUWA
Dear Yukon Party biased Land use planers.
Your Proposed Land Use Designation by Government has nothing to do with a balanced use of this one of a kind area on this earth.
It is totally biased by the influence of the multinationals natural resource extraction lobby.
The colour scheme you are using is totally deceiving and has nothing to do with protecting the pristine wilderness of the region.
No it will fracture the area into small pieces not suitable for a sustainable existence for wildlife and fauna.
LUD
The only way to protect this area is the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.
This Plan came to life by extensive true open consultation with all stakeholders involved.
Please don't bully the rapist plan. Then all 4 (four) of your variations are nothing but rape on Mother Earth.
320. Website Submission at 2:11 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan is a fair and balanced culmination of 7 years of consultations in which First Nations were equal partners, and Yukoners were given every opportunity to express their opinions,, not only is the plan proportionally representative of the interests of Yukoners (80% interim protection to 20% development), but it preserves resources and potential development for future generations, instead of selling it all for a quick buck to international companies who will likely hire international and out of territory workers. Not only does this plan protect one of the last truly pristine and untouched wilderness's on Earth but it is also a sound compromise for development,, why should we give all our resources away so readily? If the current inner Yukon Government were truly Conservative and well informed, wouldn't they strive to be promoting slow and measured growth for the protection and benefit of all Yukoners, rather than try to give it all away for a short term spike in the Yukon's GDP? We live in territory the size of Germany that supports only 30,000 people,, surely we have enough of the territory open to development that we can take the time to be truly conservative and properly manage what we have left. It is joke to say that protecting and saving huge parts of the Peel will harm the tiny economy we have in this vast territory full of possibilities, if anything accepting the plan would probably be recognized as one of the greatest achievements of sound sustainable development as well as environmental protection.
Concept A
These green washed 'concepts' are not a compromise, the Final Recommended Plan is the compromise. Independent surveys were clear when they indicated again and again that over 80% of Yukoners want protection for the Peel Watershed,, It's time for the Yukon Government to do their job and listen to the majority of Yukoners, respect the rights and voice of First Nations, and accept the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
Protect wilderness values and sustainable development by accepting the Final Recommended Plan,, not this illegal green washing joke that the inner Yukon government is calling a democratic process,, good luck in having the First Nations ever trusting you again for future land use plans if you don't respect them.
LUD
I believe the Yukon Government needs to respect a fair and Democratic voice for all Yukoners,, The Final Recommended Plan did this,, Greenwashing the land use delegations to open the region to almost unrestricted development is undemocractic and probably illegal,, I strongly recommend the Yukon Party starts listening to the majority will of Yukoners not the minority of voters that got them into office , a large portion of which probably would support the Final Recommended plan if they were truly informed about it.
321. Website Submission at 3:11 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Not much appeals to me. Instead, I have many concerns, both about what is included in the plan in the way of recommendations but also how the values are presented. First of all, there is WAY too much land preserved for park-like status, both interim and permanent. 80%! a ludicrous amount given the built-in protections afforded by a diligent and effective first-world regulatory regime. The 80% figure should be in various IMA designations and park-preserves in the 20% category (the Peel is spectacular, yes, and a 20% figure is appropriate, more than the Brundtland report recommends). Secondly, the presentation of non-renewable resource values and tourism and recreation values as single colours over an area, without showing the potential contributions to the economy is a huge and misleading oversight. It gives the impression that the two sectors contribute equally which has never been true and never will be. Thirdly, I and many friends and colleagues have spent a significant amount of time (summer) in the Peel watershed and we've never seen tourists or First Nations people straying far from the rivers - so why is the area of Tourism and Recreation Values so large, covering the vast mountainous regions between the rivers? This is a gross misrepresentation of where tourists/First Nations actually go. If this designation indicates the extent of the viewscape, I think it should be more restricted because most tourists wouldn't see it. Finally, this and all the other maps exclude important mineral dispositions such as Crest iron ore and Bonnet Plume coal, as well as areas of higher or lower mineral potential. It is impossible to evaluate how the land use designations affect access to and therefore potential development of these, and other, deposits and high potential land. I need to know what we might lose under different scenarios and these maps aren't adequate.
This plan would only be followed by a jurisdiction whose economic development is based on unlimited handouts from the Federal government. If Yukon is to be even remotely self-sustaining, we can't tie up land/resources in ways that limit our economic development by low-return industries like tourism.
Concept A
I favour high levels of active management rather than outright preservation. Of the 5 scenarios presented, this one goes furthest in that direction. However, I would go further with most of the RUWA designation between the Dempster and the NWT border changed to an IMA designation.
Concept B
As this preserves more land, I don't favour this concept.
Concept C
As this concept is increasingly more preservationist, I don't favour it.
Concept D
Too much land tied up in park-protected area status.
LUD
I think that this is an unnecessary new designation, one that could be covered under an IMA classification. As well, it is ambiguous as well, e.g. 'limits surface disturbance to 0.2% of the area' - is this a total of 0.2% or a per project 0.2%? If 0.2% of the area is disturbed, does a proponent have to wait until disturbance heals/is mitigated?
322. Website Submission at 3:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept A
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept B
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept C
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept D
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Summary
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
RUWA
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
LUD
There is a proposed Peel plan out there that has had consultation and community involvement. I support the final recommended plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
323. Website Submission at 7:24 PM
LUD
I think that the final recommended plan is way too restrictive to economic development, through mining and possibly oil and gas. The governments modified proposals are not much better. The entire region should be opened up, and let YESAB and other safeguards that currently exist ensure that development is responsible and industry cleans up after itself.
324. Website Submission at 9:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the protection for the Three Rivers area. It allows for wilderness tourism to thrive and diversify the economy and move away from relying too heavily on the boom and bust mining cycle. Paddling the Nahanni in the NWT has been on people's bucket lists across the country for decades but the Yukon rivers in the Peel region are a well-kept secret. They can bring in revenue in perpetuity if their wilderness value is maintained.
Of all the concepts, this one is preferable.
Concept A
The narrow protection of the river corridors is disconcerting. Notification of class 1 activities after the fact is insufficient to protect the wilderness value of this region. Mining and wilderness tourism are incompatible uses and the buffers are insufficient. Even the roar of float planes was disturbing when I paddled the Wind and Peel Rivers. To allow helicopters buzzing around for exploration (though far preferable to road construction) would undermine the wilderness experience and hamper the tourism industry.
Concept B
Same concerns as Concept A. Again, it is better to provide for a diverse economy and protection of the wilderness rivers would assist. We do not need another housing crisis from opening up another region to mineral exploration. Slow steady growth should be the economic goal and opening up the Peel to exploration runs contrary to sound economic principles. The region has been under a moratorium and the economy has been healthy and in fact, still growing at a fast pace.
Concept C
Same concerns as Concepts A and B, but this application is an improvement since on major wilderness river is given protection. In order to ensure a viable wilderness tourism industry, it would be wise to apply the protection to both the Wind and Snake Rivers since the Wind is known as the least difficult and therefore most accessible river from a paddling perspective. The Snake is renowned for the best hiking and paddling combination.
Concept D
Banff National Park was created with existing claims in it and no one went bankrupt. The existing mineral interests were largely created by a staking rush prior to the regional land-use plan (a rush which could have been prevented). Furthermore, claims have been prevented claims from lapsing, when many would have likely done so.
I do like the protection of the Hart River. Again all river corridors are too narrow.
Summary
Several new mines are slated to begin construction in the next year or two. Can Yukon even handle the impacts of those projects? Can we meet demand for housing and other needed services? Opening the Peel to mineral exploration is not needed to create and maintain the steady economic growth to help Yukon prosper.
Mining reclamation does not truly restore the natural habitat. Once an area is open, it could take lifetimes for the wilderness value to return. There is NO rush to put all our eggs in one mining basket.
Let's envision developing a different use of our natural resources that is in harmony with nature and First Nations history and culture. The value of wilderness is difficult to put a price on but it replenishes the soul. Perhaps that sounds too corny but consider that people pay for waterfront property, for access to parks, for travel to natural wonders.
Please accept the final recommended plan and invest in promoting the Peel Region of Yukon as a natural wonder. Thank you for considering the interests of Yukoners.
RUWA
I applaud your consideration of mandatory Class 1 reporting. But that approach should be brought in Yukon-wide. To improve active management, please require a permit for Class 1 in RUWAs. Reporting after the fact is too late.
Yukon government will need to increase compliance and enforcement for management to be effective.
LUD
The river corridors are too small. Having paddled the Wind and Peel Rivers, our group and most visitors easily hike 5 km away from the river. On the Snake River, it is common to do overnight hikes from the river. Do not allow river crossings and please expand the river corridors to a minimum of 15 km on either side.
RUWAs should not allow for roads to be built. Once a road is created, the potential for more development dramatically increases and the region will lose its ecological and cultural value forever.
325. Website Submission at 9:06 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final Recommended Plan as submitted by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission in all its aspects. I don't want to see any changes made to it.
on February 10, 2013
326. Website Submission at 7:18 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I appreciate the healthy protection given the major river basins
Summary
It is very helpful to have strong wilderness protection while still allowing development to occur.
LUD
i find this to be a very useful designation. It is easily understood and benefits from its clear intent
327. Website Submission at 10:29 AM
Concept A
It seems First Nation values have been disregarded, much of their land is designated IMA, which to my understanding means there will be mining activity.
Concept B
"protects the Peel River through the Protected Area (PA) designation." is a blatant mistruth. It will only be protected from NEW claims; existing claims will be permitted to mine. That is NOT the meaning of protected!!
Concept C
The only part of this that appeals to me is protecting river corridors. Please extend that protection to more of the area, caveat-free!
Summary
This whole revised plan is an insult to democracy. The only way to make this right is to implement the original Peel Plan. I find this revised plan and website vague
RUWA
The only way to truly protect the values of such a pristinely natural area is to actually restrict use by mining companies - leave these areas alone!
LUD
I find the names misleading. "Protected Area" sounds like it will be protected, but mining companies with current rights, which is probably a lot of companies, will be allowed to mine. This does not sound protected!! Even the descriptions are not clear at all regarding how much mining will be permitted.
328. Website Submission at 6:18 PM
Final Recommended Plan
All aspects of The Final Recommended Plan land use designation appeal to me.
Concept A
Please follow the Final Recommended Plan. I am not at all interested in these new maps.
Concept B
Please follow the Final Recommended Plan. I am not at all interested in these new maps.
Concept C
Please follow the Final Recommended Plan. I am not at all interested in these new maps.
Concept D
Please follow the Final Recommended Plan. I am not at all interested in these new maps.
RUWA
Re-hashing this "consultation" process your own way is and has been a supreme waste of time, energy and money. The taxpayers' cost for this website alone (not to mention the tremendous amount of advertising that has been done) must be exorbitant. Please stop wasting time and money and simply follow the Final Recommended Plan, which represents over 6 years of public consultation. It's ridiculous that what you're presenting here in NO way resembles the Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
Re-hashing this "consultation" process your own way is and has been a supreme waste of time, energy and money. The taxpayers' cost for this website alone (not to mention the tremendous amount of advertising that has been done) must be exorbitant. Please stop wasting time and money and simply follow the Final Recommended Plan, which represents over 6 years of public consultation. It's ridiculous that what you're presenting here in NO way resembles the Final Recommended Plan.
329. Website Submission at 10:03 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan is a compromise because there is not enough protection, however I do support it because it was produced through a democratic process in which I and many other Yukoners participated. The Yukon Government should remove all mineral claims, coal leases, and oil and gas dispositions from SMA's and WA's. I agree that the Wind River Trail should no longer be recognized as an existing route under the Yukon Highway Act, and should not be used for industrial access.
Off road vehicles should not be used in the WA's and SMA's.
Concept A
Nothing appeals to me as there is no real protection anywhere.
Everything concerns me. These flawed concepts should not be introduced at this stage in the planning process. Accept the Final Recommended Plan and get on with it.
Concept B
Nothing appeals to me as there is no real protection anywhere.
Everything concerns me. These flawed concepts should not be introduced at this stage in the planning process. Accept the Final Recommended Plan and get on with it.
Concept C
Nothing appeals to me as there is no real protection anywhere.
Everything concerns me. These flawed concepts should not be introduced at this stage in the planning process. Accept the Final Recommended Plan and get on with it.
Concept D
Nothing appeals to me as there is no real protection anywhere.
Everything concerns me. These flawed concepts should not be introduced at this stage in the planning process. Accept the Final Recommended Plan and get on with it.
Summary
It would be helpful if Government listened to the people instead of pushing their own narrow agenda. This means accepting the Final Recommended Plan as written. Thank you.
RUWA
I want to see the Commission's
Final Recommended Plan accepted and implemented as it was written as a minimum. I would have preferred to see a 100% permanent protection in the Peel. Yukon Government cannot introduce new land designations at this late stage in the planning process - it is an insult to democracy and all of us who participated in the process. The RUWA designations are not appropriate to protected areas and I want to see the Peel truly protected. They should only be applied in integrated management areas identified in the Commission's Plan.
LUD
I want to see the Commission's
Final Recommended Plan accepted and implemented as it was written as a minimum. I would have preferred to see a 100% permanent protection in the Peel. Yukon Government cannot introduce new land designations at this late stage in the planning process - it is an insult to democracy and all of us who participated in the process. The RUWA designations are not appropriate to protected areas and I want to see the Peel truly protected. They should only be applied in integrated management areas identified in the Commission's Plan.
on February 11, 2013
330. Website Submission at 10:59 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan is far too restrictive.
Concept A
I am in favor of Concept A along with the normal YESSA and regulatory reviews
Concept B
This plan is too restrictive; the normal YESSA and regulatory reviews are sufficient to protect the significant values while allowing for reasonable development
Concept C
This plan is too restrictive; the normal YESSA and regulatory reviews are sufficient to protect the significant values while allowing for reasonable development.
Concept D
This plan is too restrictive; the normal YESSA and regulatory reviews are sufficient to protect the significant values while allowing for reasonable development
331. Website Submission at 11:45 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the SMA protection of the Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake watershed. I regret the lesser protection of the Wind and part of the Peel. I like the north /south SMA protected corridor.
Concept A
Seeking to reduce conflicts with existing rights is not enough protection for the Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake river valleys. Including the Hart does not reasure me. Also what happens in the hills affects the rivers environmentally and any activity near the rivers will affect tourism and recreation values. Not all animals travel along the valleys and we need to protect this valuable refuge.
Concept B
Seeking to reduce conflicts with existing rights is not enough protection for the Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake river valleys. Including the Hart does not reasure me. Also what happens in the hills affects the rivers environmentally and any activity near the rivers will affect tourism and recreation values. Not all animals travel along the valleys and we need to protect this valuable refuge.
Concept C
Seeking to reduce conflicts with existing rights is not enough protection for the Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake river valleys. Including the Hart does not reasure me. Also what happens in the hills affects the rivers environmentally and any activity near the rivers will affect tourism and recreation values. Not all animals travel along the valleys and we need to protect this valuable refuge.
Concept D
Seeking to reduce conflicts with existing rights is not enough protection for the Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake river valleys. Including the Hart does not reasure me. Also what happens in the hills affects the rivers environmentally and any activity near the rivers will affect tourism and recreation values. Not all animals travel along the valleys and we need to protect this valuable refuge.
Summary
I felt it was crime when I saw the clearing and outfitter's building erected on the Bonnet Plume and heard the buzzing of exploration helicopters. There are lots of other rich areas in the Yukon to mine and we do not need to damage this area. I know mining has come a long way but past mistakes and present enduring environmental damage are just too awful to contemplate in this region. We should protect as much of it as we can.
RUWA
The RUWA allows new land uses and surface access. This management regime will not protect key areas containing significant ecological, wilderness and cultural aspects which I understand are the major values of the area.
LUD
Use the existing land use category proposed in the North Yukon Land Use Plan. It contains designations reached after a democratic process by people intimately associated with and knowledgable of the region. It also has the best chance of protecting the values of the area.
332. Website Submission at 2:13 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Keep whole area Tourism and Recreation plus the Land Claims areas.
Concept A
Again protect the whole area for now; perhaps revisit in 20 years and see what is what at that time.
RUWA
The Peel Watershed Region should be totally protected and should be used for tourism and recreation but with restrictions so the area stays as a presteen wilderness area. In Yukon there are huge areas for which can be used for mineral exprloration. As happened in the 1980s the bottom fell out of minerial price and tourism was the only income for Yukon. That will happen again and if we distroy this wilderness area there will be no tourism thus no income. Also, we need to protect areas such as these for our children and grandchildren. If we distroy all the land now what will be left for the future generations.
LUD
This land should be totally protected and perhaps designated as a wilderness park.
333. Website Submission at 4:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I wish you had further explanation of the Ecological & Conservation Values and First Nation Values illustrations. This seems like a reasonable plan as it protects the river areas that most people seem to be concerned about.
Concept A
I like the water protection that this provides. This looks like it might be a good compromise for a lot of groups.
Concept B
This plan is the best choice of the new concepts because I feel it offers the most protection for waterways and access for other interests. I'm concerned about Zone 13 as I feel it gets too close to the Peel River.
Concept C
In this scenario even more area is protected, this also looks like a good option.
Concept D
There is far too much river area that isn't protected as a RUWA Corridor. The waterways are the most important part of this area and should all be well protected.
334. Website Submission at 7:12 PM
Concept A
The concept A proposal is the most realistic for Yukoners. I feel we should not be restricting future generations from the ability to generate a vibrant Yukon economy. Relying on the massive transfer payment as our bread and butter is certainly foolhardy considering the potential oilpatch collapse facing southern Canada. If the U.S. starts developing there own oil our economic opportunities will surely decrease. We need to keep the options available.
Concept B
Similar to A but why would one want to restrict an area (4) which is already the closest in terms of access. Always remember that without the road infrastructure nothing can realistically even get of the ground.
Concept C
Tourism values are already protected adequately in concept A. Additional tourism protection is not reasonable to the majority of Yukoners.
Concept D
Overly protective without knowing the real potential of such a vast area. Proper and thorough mineral exploration should not be restricted. Do not shut anything out until one is truly aware of any potential for economic development. What is not feasible by todays standard may change in the future.
335. Website Submission at 8:16 PM
Final Recommended Plan
read previous notes
Concept A
ditto
Concept B
ditto
Concept C
ditto
Concept D
nope
RUWA
My opinion is...
Like the majority of Yukoners
Protect the Peel
The previous consultation were open, complete and clear.
The land and water needs to be protected
Yukon future does not require this area to be developed
336. Website Submission at 9:21 PM
Concept A
A grater area should be alotted for resourse Devlopment
Concept B
Too great of an area is omitted for resurce development
Concept C
In view of the mineral potential the Peel areashould be permitted for resourse development
Summary
Use the mineral resourses i the Peel area to stimulate Yukon and the Canadan economies.
RUWA
Use all Peel Area for Reource development so we do not promote more poverty in the Yukon.
LUD
Protectors of the Peel resourse area are promoters of povberty for all Yukoners
337. Website Submission at 9:31 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
Concept A
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
Concept B
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
Concept C
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
Concept D
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
LUD
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan and the land use designations (SMA, WA, IMA) as defined by it. I believe that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan clearly represents the interests of involved parties and should be followed.
on February 12, 2013
338. Website Submission at 10:31 AM
Concept A
No
Concept B
No.
Concept C
No.
Concept D
No.
RUWA
These propositions are an effort by the Yukon Party Government to put forward THEIR agenda and to dismiss the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions Final Recommended Plan. The final recommended plan represents Yukoners in a fair and balanced way. The Yukon Party is disrespecting the work of the commission and the will and rights of Yukon First Nations People.
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions Final Recommended Plan.
339. Website Submission at 10:51 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
Concept A
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
Concept B
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
Concept C
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
Summary
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
RUWA
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
LUD
Accept the recommendations outlined in the original report from the Peel Planning commission
340. Website Submission at 12:02 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support Concept A.
Concept B
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support Concept B.
Concept C
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support Concept C.
Concept D
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support Concept D.
Summary
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support the RUWA modification to the land use designations.
LUD
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. I do not support any changes to the land use designations proposed in the Final Recommended Plan.
341. Website Submission at 7:30 PM
Concept A
Do not like this concept A
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
Concept B
I do not like this concept,
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
Concept C
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
Concept D
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
RUWA
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
LUD
I support ONLY the implementation of the 2011 Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan and none of the YTG changes
342. Website Submission at 11:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the only plan I can support. I actually wish it offered 100% protection, but will concede with this plan.
Concept A
There is not enough protection.
Concept B
There is not enough protection.
Concept C
There is not enough protection.
Concept D
There is not enough protection.
Summary
Look at Cuba! They have made so much of their lands protected and now make a lot of money on eco tourism! Mining and non-renewable resource use are not sustainable. Once this land is gone, we can't go back. We need to move very slow in our use of this land and monitor small bits of use very closely before we can know the long term impact we are having on this valuable resource.
RUWA
It sounds like a nice idea, but all the areas you suggest be under RUWA designation should be completely protected! If you make the areas protected, you will be able to 'manage' them much more easily.
LUD
The FRP designations are the best, so please just use them. After 6-7 years of consultation and consideration, it is the only plan to follow.
on February 13, 2013
343. Website Submission at 9:03 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I think the FRP is a balanced approach to land management
Concept A
It appears that the proposals put forth by YG do not take into account the wishes of the yukon people
Concept B
I'm am concerned over the lack of public input. YG has developed these designations without public input.
Concept C
same as before
Concept D
same as before
Summary
I beleive the FRP should be followed.
RUWA
follow the ecommendations of the FRP provided by the PWPC
LUD
use the the designations put forward by the PWPC. these designations were brought forward by the PWPC and are representative of the stakeholder wishes. YG was part of this process.
344. Website Submission at 9:41 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the plan you should accept. It cost a lot of money to produce so stop wasting time and get on with it.
345. Website Submission at 10:20 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan:
- I believe the creation of a large contiguous protected area for the Wind, Bonnet Plume, Snake and Peel Rivers will create a world class legacy that looking back 25, 50 or 100 years from now will be viewed as a bold forward looking initiative.
- I believe the go slow approach of limiting development within the WA zones is prudent.
- I respect the fact that this plan is the result of a long and thorough process which delved deeply into the issues facing the Peel area and believe it is truly a sound and forward looking document.
Concept A
I DO NOT SUPPORT OPTION A
- I believe that this option tips the balance too far in favour of development.
- Looking back the failure to create a significant legacy protected area will be seen to be short sighted and nothing short of a missed opportunity.
- I do not believe that RUWA Corridor provides adequate protection for the values associated with the River Corridors -- at minimum the identified RUWA Corridors should become PA -- though this falls far short in terms of creating a true legacy.
Concept B
I DO NOT SUPPORT OPTION B
- I believe that this option also tips the balance too far in favour of development. While the addition of the protected area (4) is a step in the right direction I do not feel it goes far enough to strike a balance between protection and development.
- Looking back the failure of Option B to create a significant legacy protected area will be seen to be short sighted and nothing short of a missed opportunity.
- I do not believe that RUWA Corridor provides adequate protection for the values associated with the River Corridors -- at minimum the identified RUWA Corridors should become PA -- though even this falls far short in terms of creating a significant legacy.
Concept C
I DO NOT FULLY SUPPORT OPTION C
- Although I see Option C as being better than Options A & B with the protection of the Snake I do not think that it goes far enough especially in the case of the Bonnet Plume which is a designated Canadian Heritage River and thus deserving of PA designation.
- I do not believe that RUWA Corridor provides adequate protection for the values associated with the River Corridors -- at minimum the identified RUWA Corridors on the Wind and Bonnet Plume should become PA -- though even this falls short in terms of creating a legacy of global significance.
- I like the increased continuity/connectivity of Thombstone Park that this option offers. I do however think that to more fully embrace this concept that the RUWA Corridor connecting PA6 with PA 11 should become PA. Though this would improve connectivity I feel that this still falls short of creating a true global legacy.
Concept D
I DO NOT FULLY SUPPORT OPTION D
- Although I see Option D as being better than Options A & B with the protection of the Hart which offers increased continuity/connectivity of Thombstone Park I think that to fully embrace this concept that the RUWA Corridor connecting PA6 with PA 11 should become PA. Though this would improve connectivity I feel that this still falls short of creating a true global legacy.
- I am concerned about the loss of contiguity of the PA on the Snake and feel that at minimum the RUWA Corridor should become PA.
- I am also concerned that the Bonnet Plume which is a Canadian Heritage River has not received PA status -- at a bare minimum its RUWA Corridor should be converted to PA, as well as that of the Wind.
- I think that this option while better than Options A & B still falls short of creating a true global legacy and hence represents a missed opportunity
RUWA
The RUWA designation sounds nice and warm and fuzzy but when I look at the allowed uses and the suite of management tools being suggested it seems that in practical terms that this designation is really nothing more than an IMA designation by another name.
To differentiate an RUWA from IMA I feel that road-based access should not be allowed – especially in Wilderness River Corridor subzones.
LUD
PA
- Existing mineral rights should be extinguished within PAs. To permit existing rights will undermine the effective protection of the ecological, wilderness and cultural values which this designation is intended to protect.
RUWA
- Permit existing rights, but withdraw from new land uses or the development of road-based access.
346. Website Submission at 11:19 AM
Final Recommended Plan
why is there only one area what is for wilderness, were impeaching their land. they deserve the most space.
Concept A
this is the stupides thing i have ever seen, the wildlife needs more space!
Concept B
where is the RUWA too much mining
Concept C
more space for RUWA but the mining area is too close
Concept D
i like this idea the best
RUWA
I think that this is a terrible idea. the Peel needs to be saved. But if you do have to mine it, save most of it, because if you dont it is going to end badly for us.
347. Website Submission at 12:53 PM
Final Recommended Plan
it had the full support of the yukon public and First Nations involved
Concept A
does not appeal to me
Concept B
does not appeal to me
Concept C
does not appeal to me
Concept D
does not appeal to me
RUWA
Restricted Use Wilderness Area designations being proposed by yukon government should not be part of the plan, Plan should remain as proposed by the commission
LUD
As these as not part of the final plan as proposed by the commission, they should not be used
348. Website Submission at 2:15 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the best of the 5 concepts on display. It protects woodland caribou (Northern Mountain and Boreal), which are considered "Special concern" and threatened" by COSEWIC, but does not necessarily provide enough protection for wintering barren-ground caribou. I support this concept out of these five, but have some reservations about the research behind the original threshold levels chosen, or gleaned, from the North Yukon Land use plan. The thresholds proposed for IMA Zone IV are too high, and should be well under 0.6 km/km2 for linear disturbance.
Concept A
None of the aspects appeal to me. The areas slated for IMA Zone II and III development are all important area for wintering barren-ground caribou, as well as important cultural area for the Tetl'it Gwich'in. Considering that barren ground caribou suffer a decrease in density of 86% at a linear density of 0.6 km/km2, the 0.5 km/km2 critical density is too high! I would suggest closer to 0.2 km/km2 for this area would be more precautionary, considering there is no original research to back up the proposed critical values. A linear and surface density of 0.2 for the entirety of the 4 watersheds (Snake, Bonnet Plume, Wind, and Hart) is unconscionable. The linear disturbance would reduce effective habitat for woodland caribou (which are of greater conservation concern than barren-ground caribou) by 25%, producing only about 65% chance of maintaining viable populations for herds such as the Hart and Bonnet Plume Herds (read the recovery strategy for woodland caribou just released by the Species at Risk Act, Environment Canada). More research obviously needs to be done on this. Thanks!
Concept B
see comments for Concept A, it's not much different, other than possibly protection for the Hart River woodland caribou herd. The Bonnet Plume Herd would still be at significant risk of extirpation. 15,127 km of linear disturbance is shockingly high.
Concept C
this is a slightly better land concept than A or B, but 14,008 km of linear disturbance is still too high and I don't see any protection afforded for the Bonnet Plume caribou herd.
Concept D
Why is a major portion of LMU 9 not protected in this concept? Is it because of active mineral claims already in that area? If so, that puts the needs of one person ahead of the needs of millions of present and future people who would like to use this area and enjoy it. I still see no protection afforded the Bonnet Plume woodland caribou herd.
Summary
Future research and planning should involve more than just two indicator types: surface disturbance and linear density, as these only partially address cumulative effects, and do not address cumulative impacts on wildlife. Thanks!
RUWA
By not having a critical level of 0.2% surface disturbance, or 0.2 km/km2 linear disturbance levels, these are ZoneII management levels and would not be appropriate for a Wilderness Area.
LUD
How would land use level be monitored? According to your senior planners it would be self-reported. How would we ensure it wasn't surpassed before it was too late? You have not stated anywhere what the linear density critical level would be? How can we trust that? It should be clearly stated somewhere. What kind of original research did YG do or use to come up with these numbers? I would like to see it. What credentials do YG senior planners have? I've heard that a consulting company came up with the new concepts, the same consultant that drafted other land use plans, such as the North Yukon Scenario modelling report, which I view as a conflict of interest. We should have objective researchers that are qualified look at the Land management system and critical levels that YG has presented to the public. I've looked through the literature and the YG pages don't cite a single peer-reviewed article. 0.2 km/km2 is very high for a wilderness area. That would result in 16,000 km of roads, which is unacceptable. This area should remain un-roaded and undeveloped. Even for the IMAs, linear density levels should be lower, but the research needs to be done first. Once access is open, it stays open, and reduces start-up costs for other types of development, which will occur, and will occur with little control.
on February 14, 2013
349. Website Submission at 6:42 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Oil & gas potential overlaps too much with sma
Concept A
I like ruwa corridor as these are highest traffic areas
Preferred concept, allows for development and management for other values
RUWA
I like number for disturbance as once agreed upon, these are less open for argument
LUD
New designations allow for more flexibility. Good idea.
350. Website Submission at 7:11 PM
Concept D
I think I favor D, though anything is better than the original plan. 80% protection is too much. I love the Yukon and it's nature and beauty, but I do believe in sustainable development and having some sort of industry in the north. I grew up in the shadow of Kluane National Park, and though it is beautiful, it totally killed any thought of development in the area. Besides , the parks are mostly enjoyed by all the rich tourists that have the money to access them.
on February 15, 2013
351. Website Submission at 1:54 PM
RUWA
My last feedback disappeared from the input window. So here it is again. I'm very much opposed to any amendment to the Final Recommended Land Use Plan developed by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It was arrived at through an open and democratic process and reflects the views of Yukoners. Hands off the plan as it was developed. DO NOT change it. Yukoners have spoken and you as their elected representatives have the obligation to listen to them.
352. Website Submission at 3:30 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final Recommended Peel Plan by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Summary
I support the final plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
353. Website Submission at 3:42 PM
Summary
I am ignoring this section since I do not feel as though the process is a legitimate one.
RUWA
Conservation values were already identified as tantamount to the Peel Watershed, as determined through a long, thorough and objective process. The Peel Watershed Planning Commission's findings are at this link: http://www.peel.planyukon.ca/downloads/FRLUP.html. Please respect the findings of this earlier legitimate process. This current YG process is problematic mainly since it appears to not completely accept the findings that have already been compiled. It also seems to be taking place at least partly in response to pro-mining interests who found the PWPC's findings to be too conservationist. However it would appear there is a critical mass who support this and that the mining interests do not reflect views held by most Yukoners. Please respect the work done by the PWPC and abandon this YG process!
on February 16, 2013
354. Website Submission at 4:24 PM
Summary
accept the work that has been done in the Peel Planning Commission's Recommended plan.
RUWA
Accept the Peel Planning Commission's Recommended plan.
LUD
Accept the Peel Planning Commission's Recommended plan.
355. Website Submission at 7:42 PM
Final Recommended Plan
None of this appeals to me. It is shear nonsense. Please abide by the YESAB recommendations and stop mocking Yukon's people with your smoke and mirror show.
Concept A
Just abide by the YESAB reccommendations and stop taken Yukon electors for idiots.
Concept B
As stated above
Concept C
As stated above
Concept D
As stated above
RUWA
The only real, authentic way that a wilderness area can remain a real, genuine wilderness area is by excluding all industrial, mining, oil, gas and power generation anywhere in it. These so-called "new land use designations" are nothing more than a smoke and mirror show that the Yukon Party government is using in the hope of convincing ultra naive folks that it cares in any meaningful way about the Peel River watershed and the wilderness in, on or underneath it. Only fools could take it seriously. If the Yukon Party government persists, it will be thrown out of office at the next election as surely as you may be able to fool a majority of the people by refusing to commit yourself during one election, but you can never do it twice in a row.
LUD
Yes, scrap all of this nonsensical proposal immediately and listen to the overwhelming majority of the people telling you (the Yukon Party government) to abide fully by the YESAB recommendations.
356. Website Submission at 7:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
Concept A
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
Concept B
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
Concept C
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
Concept D
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
RUWA
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
LUD
I support protecting 80% of this wilderness with the remainder open to carefully controlled development as recommended by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission after 6 years of careful study and consultation.
on February 17, 2013
357. Website Submission at 11:01 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I don't respect the YTG final recommended plan and wish YTG will adopt the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan without ammendment.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. It was the result of an open, comprehensive, democratic process and clearly specifies a fair and balanced long term plan.
LUD
YTG must accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommendations fully without amendment.
358. Website Submission at 11:36 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The aspect that concerns me is that this plan does not protect the watershed.
Go back to the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike this plan
Concept A
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike this plan.
Concept B
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike this plan.
Concept C
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike this plan.
Concept D
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike this plan.
RUWA
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
I would suggest you refer back to this plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed unlike the plan YG proposed. The plan was developed by involving many stakeholders and reflects transparent process. Unlike the government process which has been a unilateral proposal.
In addition I find your website information deceiving and the way input can be provided is neither user friendly or inviting to truly hear what people think, unless you are highly literate and are willing to wade through all the government rhetoric and forced limited choices.
LUD
I support the peel watershed planning commission’s final recommended plan.
This plan supports true protection of the Peel watershed by involving many stakeholders and reflects transparent process. I would suggest you refer back to this document .
359. Website Submission at 1:54 PM
Summary
I think what I am trying to say is that I have already provided my feedback to the legitimately established Peel Land Use Planning Commission process, and I don't need to start re-thinking my input. I support the recommendations of the Peel Land Use Commission, and I don't support the revised concepts presented in this presentation on the web. The concepts presented in this web-site do not offer sufficient protection, nor do they offer a legitimate process, and therefore they will not result in a good plan.
RUWA
Restricted Use Wilderness should provide total wilderness park-like protection, with no roads or bridges allowed. No active mines should be allowed in this area. No further exploration should be allowed in this zone. It should be like the protected area.
LUD
Yes, the land use designations should follow the same plan as recommended by the Peel Commission. There is no need to try to improve upon a process that was fair, balanced, democratic, and in line with the land claim agreements. Any such attempt will only create anger and resentment, and cause people to question why the original process of the commission is not being followed.
360. Website Submission at 5:22 PM
Final Recommended Plan
None of it. Please follow the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Planning Commission
Concept A
Please follow the Final Recommended Plan!
Concept B
The majority of Yukoners wnat the majority of the Peel Protected. Nothing else is democratic.
Concept C
The use of green and the words you use are pure double speak. They do not mean protection.
Please, it is not too late for you to be democratic, to be truthful, to acknowledge this time of rapid climate change, and to protect this incredible, unique in the world, placae.
Concept D
I have done so.
Summary
Please, please, follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended plan.
RUWA
Follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan for the Peel.
LUD
Yes, a complete change, to a plan that truly protects most of the Peel: the Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. It is compromise, as most of us want 100% protection. But it does protect 55% of the Peel, and gives a ten year interim protection to 25%.
361. Website Submission at 7:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan as developed by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission according to the agreed-upon consultation process appears to be the only one that reflects what the PUBLIC really wants.
Anything developed without the same degree of consultation denies the Public the opportunity for input that was agreed upon.
Concept A
Where's the public consultation on this concept?
Concept B
Where's the public consultation on this concept?
Concept C
Where's the public consultation on this concept?
Concept D
Where's the public consultation on this concept?
Summary
Why is there no public consultation on these proposals as there was during the development of the Final Recommended Plan?
The Final Recommended Plan as developed by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission according to the agreed-upon consultation process appears to be the only one that reflects what the PUBLIC really wants.
Anything developed without the same degree of consultation denies the Public the opportunity for input that was agreed upon.
362. Website Submission at 7:35 PM
RUWA
I support the government's balanced position of protecting pristine wilderness AND respecting all sectors of the economy.
The Umbrella Final Agreement states the final recommended plan can be: 1) accepted; 2) rejected; 3) modified.
363. Website Submission at 7:54 PM
RUWA
I do like the New Designation: Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA) and sub -zone Wildnerness River Corridor I support The Government of Yukon to use the Land Use Designation tools to add to the work that has already been done by the commission.
As a Yukon resident and tax payer I appreciate the opportunity to give my feed back and thoughts at this time.
364. Website Submission at 8:43 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Please respect the regional land use planning process and accept the final plan as recommended by the commission.
Summary
Regional land use planning will have no value if the work of the planning commissions is not respected. Accept the final recommended plan of the Peel River Planning Commission.
on February 18, 2013
365. Website Submission at 8:17 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
Concept A
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
Concept B
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
Concept C
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
Concept D
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
Summary
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
With such an intact wilderness area we have only one chance to protect it as is. We can never bring back what is here now after development takes place. I have travelled in the area and it is one of the most ecologically diverse areas I have ever seen. This is a value that needs to be recognized and in a way that the ecosystem is not broken.
The Peel Watershed Planning Commission spent 6 years working on a plan that is fair. It worked with Yukoner's and First Nations to work out an equitable, balanced plan that was acceptable by a majority of Yukoners and is able to be revisited and amended if such a need arises in the future.
The Peel Land Use Commissions final recommendation was the most likely to succeed and be accepted by all parties.
Although, I personally would like to see it more restrictive, I do realize that there is a non-renewable resource economy that we all rely on and the hard work of the Peel Land Use Commission should be recognized and accepted.
RUWA
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
LUD
This is not balanced enough.
Go back to the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions recommendation and accept it.
366. Website Submission at 11:11 AM
RUWA
I simply do not understand why the government cannot use the plan that was recommended by the Commission. We do not need to reinvent the wheel here.
367. Website Submission at 12:59 PM
Final Recommended Plan
These designations are well articulated and allocated. I support the percentages of protection proposed by the Commission. Although I'd prefer 100% of this unique region is protected for present and future generations, I accept the recommendations of the Commission as a fair and balanced plan.
Concept A
There is no need for new designations and options (concepts). I fully support the recommended usages of each area clearly identified in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Recommended Plan
Concept B
There is no need for new designations and options (concepts). I fully support the recommended usages of each area clearly identified in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Recommended Plan
Concept C
There is no need for new designations and options (concepts). I fully support the recommended usages of each area clearly identified in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Recommended Plan
Concept D
There is no need for new designations and options (i.e. YG concepts). I fully support the recommended usages of each area clearly identified in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Recommended Plan
Summary
Please restore the public's belief in democracy by implementing the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I have reviewed both the proposed new designations by YG and the plan written after 6 years of democratic consultation with balanced representation. My conclusion is we already have a fair and balanced plan for the future of this Watershed - the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. This plan is the only legitimate plan for this significant wilderness area. Please respect the choice of Yukoners (First Nations and non-First Nations) and implement the Peel Commission's plan.
LUD
The new designations are misleading (appearing to be 'green' options) and unnecessary. These designations should be eliminated in favour of the designations and final plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
368. Website Submission at 2:16 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Peel Watershed Planning Commission was a thorough and inclusive process that garnered substantial support from both First Nations and non-First Nations Yukoners alike. This was confirmed by the Datapath survey in 2009. The findings of this report should be respected and honored by the YTG. If you didn't plan to honor these findings you should have made that EXPLICIT during the election. So what concerns me is, our current territorial government appears to be prioritizing corporate interests over the interests and wishes of the majority of Yukoners. And, the current leadership demonstrated the honesty and integrity in fudging the position of the Yukon party during the election. So why should any of us trust anything that you say; how could we possibly trust that you have any capacity or commitment to protecting any of the sensitive areas?
Concept D
Essentially all of these "concepts" prioritize resource development at the expense of ecologically sensitive areas. Furthermore, these concepts do not reflect the fact that the YTG has a legal obligation to honor existing land claim agreements with Yukon First Nations. I do not support the implementation of any of these concepts for these reasons.
369. Website Submission at 5:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
What concerns me is that YG seems bent on developing the Peel Watershed despite what Yukoners have been saying from the beginning i.e. be glad we have wilderness areas still intact and do our best as a territory to maintain these valuable areas.
Concept A
You have made this much too complicated for folks to respond and understand what you are asking for. You are talking about values - what appeals to me is VALUING WILDERNESS. What concerns me is developing wilderness.
RUWA
1. My suggestion: Adopt the recommended land use plan as provided by the Peel River Planning Commission (in its entirety).
2. These proposed options rely on "active management by applying specific requirements on activities". We have evidence from past development and exploration activities that show us that we can't activity manage these activities once they have begun and particularly when they are not easily accessible. Don't be fooled that YG will have either the resources or ability to "manage" the environmental damage that will occur from resource development.
LUD
Why didn't YG include the Peel River Planning Commission's recommendation as one of the options in your consultation?
Leave the wild in wilderness!
370. Website Submission at 6:35 PM
Summary
Let the land be. Let it manage itself without input from government and mines. Leave that which is prestine in it's present condition.
RUWA
My suggestion is to make the Peel area a PA or protected area. Protect the values in the area by not permitting or designating any area a restricted use wilderness area.
You cannot manage values you can only respect them and leave them alone. Mines and mining activity is not respecting the values that are there.
LUD
The proposed land use designations should be dropped like the political hot potato that they are. Keep with what was initially proposed and stop trying to weasel in mining that short lived and will impact the wilderness significantly.
371. Website Submission at 9:09 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Least complicated Land Use Plan, clear zones for different industries, easiest to monitor, least expensive to monitor. Integral part of land designated as wilderness, from which wildlife and nature can benefit best. Connects well with NWT protected lands. Supported by several years of research by assigned committee. Profitable for Yukon economy in the long run.
Concept A
No aspects appeal to me. I am concerned about the scattered designations, hard to control borders of activities/land use. Likely will keep the entire area under discussion for decades, which will require lots of funding and human resources.
Concept B
No aspects appeal to me. I am concerned about the scattered designations, hard to control borders of activities/land use. Likely will keep the entire area under discussion for decades, which will require lots of funding and human resources.
Concept C
No aspects appeal to me. I am concerned about the scattered designations, hard to control borders of activities/land use. Likely will keep the entire area under discussion for decades, which will require lots of funding and human resources. The only approvement compared to A & B is the connection of protected land to NWT protected land.
Concept D
No aspects appeal to me. I am concerned about the scattered designations, hard to control borders of activities/land use. Likely will keep the entire area under discussion for decades, which will require lots of funding and human resources.
RUWA
Keep the amount of "active" stakeholders as low as possible, and keep the designations as simple as possible i.e. strive for mainly one type of use of the concerned area. The proposed variation in use is a tinder box for law suits (and loss of public money) about exact borders, exact type of activity etc. It will add a huge claim on the territory's finances to keep all different aspects under control and law.
LUD
Please stick to the original Recommended Land Use Plan
372. Website Submission at 9:10 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The request for such a large swathe of blanket protection, particularly seeing as so little is known about what is in the region and seeing as it is so inaccessible that mass development will most likely not occur anyways, makes little sense to me. Again, since the region is so inaccessible, I cannot see the rationale being general access for wilderness adventures for the benefit of Yukoners. As a Yukoner I highly doubt I will be able to afford a trip down the Peel or Wind Rivers in my lifetime, between the costs of the transport to and survival during the trip, so the only beneficiaries I can see are wilderness tourist operators who take wealthier tourists who can afford the trip down one of the rivers. I agree that to allow the entire region to be developed would be a travesty, but I do not agree that the Final Recommended Plan is in the best interests of all Yukoners, unless by "Yukoners" we mean invested activist groups who receive funding based on their success in such political battles and wilderness tourist operators.
Concept A
I'll admit I am not that familiar with the geography nor geology of the region (but then again, neither are most people) so I cannot comment intelligently on whether the IMA designations correctly reflect resource potential. This does appear to be a balanced plan to me, if for no other reason that the majority of the basin is still protected, albeit parts of it under the RUWA designation to allow for the flexible reassessment of the area should public values or public knowledge of the area change.
Concept D
My assessments of Concepts B, C, D is no different than my thoughts on Concept A.
Summary
I will admit I do not feel passionately about the Peel Watershed. I do not believe the whole region should be developed (nor do i think it will be regardless of whichever plan is selected), nor do I think complete protection is in the best interests of Yukoners. The Yukon's central strengths are a rich natural environment and a rich natural resource base. There is an inherent tension between the two, but that should not prevent us as a territory from capitalizing on the potential of both, for which reason I am a strong believer in balance - protecting those most sensitive areas yet enabling sustainable development in others. I believe industry should be held to a high standard in pursuing development in the area to ensure it is as non-disruptive as possible. At the end of this, I believe that balance will be achieved, yet the process to getting there has been rocky. I have been very disappointed watching the virulence of this debate evolve. To me, the question of whether the Final Recommended Plan indeed represents the wishes of all Yukoners was, in part, decided in the 2011 election, when the NDP, which emphasized their support of that Plan throughout the campaign, was not elected. Since then, the NDP and environmental groups such as CPAWS and YCS have become almost militant in their opposition to any plan other than the Commission's. Since the public consultation which ends next week is, as far as I am aware, required under the Umbrella Final Agreement, I don't understand their vehemence that YTG, in holding the consultation, is being undemocratic. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Dave Loeks continues to write letters to the editor urging the government to accept the plan is puzzling, since, as the chair of the independent commission, I would have thought that his mandate would have ended with the commission's disbandment. Overall, I have been very disappointed with how the process has evolved and sincerely hope it will not be repeated in the 6 land use plans yet to go.
RUWA
In my opinion, the RUWA designation is a positive one, in that it is flexible enough to enable both protection of some areas and exploration leading to potential sustainable development in others. Currently, one of the major issues I see with the entire decision-making process (i.e. which areas to protect) is that the information pertaining to the subsurface is simply not available. The inaccessibility of the area is the greatest block to development, and I am quite sure that, even if the entire region were open to development, it would not occur in mass form. I do, however, believe in balancing environmentalism and economics - protecting the areas that need it while conditionally opening up others. I'm not fully sure I understand the different designations, but, off the cuff, the RUWA looks to provide the flexibility to achieve that balance.
LUD
No, but I don't think I'm clear on what percentage of the total area is meant for each designation. By that I mean, it's unclear how the 0.2% of the RUWA slated as the cap for surface development will be determined. Also, under the RUWA Wilderness RIver Corridor, what is meant by Temporary Access? Would that include industry building a temporary bridge across a river? I am not necessarily opposed to such temporary development, yet more clarity would have been beneficial.
373. Website Submission at 10:39 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Way too much land under SMA
Concept A
I like this plan. This strategy gives opportunity for the most balanced approach to all stake holders
Concept B
I don't like the fact that parcel 4 beside the Dempster is now a PA....there is already a park in the area.
Concept C
Too much land under PA
Concept D
Again too much land under PA
on February 19, 2013
374. Website Submission at 12:33 PM
Final Recommended Plan
What appeals to me most about the Plan recommended by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission was its democratic and multi-stakeholder consultation process. My impression is that the Plan represents the best compromise possible.
Summary
Collaboration with First Nations.
RUWA
I don't have suggestions on this. I was impressed with the multi-stakeholder work of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission, and support and trust their Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
As above, I was impressed with the multi-stakeholder work of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission, and support and trust their Final Recommended Plan.
375. Website Submission at 12:39 PM
Final Recommended Plan
areas other than protected areas would be worthless to caribou especially in landscape management units (LMU) #4 and #8 where most of the woodland caribou live.
Concept A
No connectivity between proposed protected areas...which are still open to access!
Concept B
No connectivity between proposed protected areas...which are still open to access!
Concept C
zone #12 doomed as well as caribou in #8
Concept D
zone #12 and bottom of 9 doomed as well as caribou in #8 but at least not much to modify to have #2, 4, 6 properly connected to 11...some work could also be done to connect bottom #9 with the rest of #9.
Summary
I support the final recommended Plan. The protected areas proposed by the government allow development of acces roads and existing mines....so not real parks.
RUWA
The following results are based on a project for a graduate class on cumulative impacts in the Peel:
A basic analysis of the woodland caribou distribution in the Peel (using Maxent) suggests that 1) They were sensitive to the road density within a radius of 70km; 2) The chance of them being present in an area drops when road density reaches 0.04 km/km2 and are almost null past 0.12 km/km2. With up to 0.2 km of road per km2, grey areas would be worthless to caribou especially in landscape management units (LMU) #4 and #8 where most of those caribou live. This is far below the 0.2 km/km2 the government seems to consider for what they call Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA).
LUD
Base on connectivity and forest dynamic simulations (using CONSERV and Benchmark Builder), the chance for the proposed protected areas to maintain enough of each habitat through time to allow for self-recolonisation after events such as fire is relatively low. This is especially true for LMU #2 (tombstone territorial park) if not extented to LMU #4 and #6, as well as for LMU #12 (James Creek-Vittrekwa River Gwich'in Conservation Zone) if not extended to LMU #10 or #13. Considering that those results were based on current fire rate despite that the Yukon may experience the highest increase in forest fire across Canada with climate change, the final recommended plan prepared by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is probably the only one offering enough connectivity between protected areas.
376. Website Submission at 12:48 PM
Final Recommended Plan
areas other than protected areas would be worthless to caribou especially in landscape management units (LMU) #4 and #8 where most of the woodland caribou live.
Concept A
No connectivity between proposed protected areas...which are still open to access!
Concept B
No connectivity between proposed protected areas...which are still open to access!
Concept C
zone #12 doomed as well as caribou in #8
Concept D
zone #12 and bottom of 9 doomed as well as caribou in #8 but at least not much to modify to have #2, 4, 6 properly connected to 11...some work could also be done to connect bottom #9 with the rest of #9.
Summary
I support the final recommended Plan. The protected areas proposed by the government allow development of acces roads and existing mines....so not real parks.
RUWA
The following results are based on a project for a graduate class on cumulative impacts in the Peel:
A basic analysis of the woodland caribou distribution in the Peel (using Maxent) suggests that 1) They were sensitive to the road density within a radius of 70km; 2) The chance of them being present in an area drops when road density reaches 0.04 km/km2 and are almost null past 0.12 km/km2. With up to 0.2 km of road per km2, grey areas would be worthless to caribou especially in landscape management units (LMU) #4 and #8 where most of those caribou live. This is far below the 0.2 km/km2 the government seems to consider for what they call Restricted Use Wilderness Area (RUWA).
LUD
Base on connectivity and forest dynamic simulations (using CONSERV and Benchmark Builder), the chance for the proposed protected areas to maintain enough of each habitat through time to allow for self-recolonisation after events such as fire is relatively low. This is especially true for LMU #2 (tombstone territorial park) if not extented to LMU #4 and #6, as well as for LMU #12 (James Creek-Vittrekwa River Gwich'in Conservation Zone) if not extended to LMU #10 or #13. Considering that those results were based on current fire rate despite that the Yukon may experience the highest increase in forest fire across Canada with climate change, the final recommended plan prepared by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is probably the only one offering enough connectivity between protected areas.
377. Website Submission at 2:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
All aspects of the Final Recommended Plan appeal to me
Concept A
None.
Concept B
None.
Concept C
None.
Concept D
None.
Summary
I have serious concerns with the Restricted Use Wilderness Area under the land use designations as proposed by the Government of Yukon. It states that “surface access may occur” but once any form of surface access occurs the whole ecology of the region is affected. The damage caused in the construction of trails, roads and bridges affects the land, the plants and animals. Roads are constructed in or along the sides of valleys with the result they are near water courses. The construction will cause some silting no matter how much care is taken which will affect aquatic life. Also some areas in mountainous terrain are more affected by heavy downpours from showers and runoff from the rain on the road will wash into water courses. Two examples from southern Yukon on a very well built road - the Alaska highway - are the washout of the Iron Creek bridge a number of years ago and the damage to the highway from the major runoff at Rancheria last year. The forests can absorb a lot of heavy rain but roads cannot and may be washout with the resulting debris entering water courses. Another feature of roads is the affect they have on wildlife. Some animals make use of roads as they are easy to travel on and may be killed by vehicles travelling on the road at high speed. Other animals shun roads and as a result some populations can be divided. The animals most at threat will be the caribou herds particularly the Bonnet Plume, Hart River and Redstone herds. The caribou and the moose will also be affected by increasing pressure as more hunters gain access to the areas. The idea of “temporary access” across Wilderness River Corridors is ludicrous. Any access will leave a scare which last for a many, many years no matter how much remediation is done and will be a detriment to wilderness tourism. Once a road is built there will be little if any call to remove it and return the land to some form of wilderness once the reason for the road no longer exists.
I can understand the Government of Yukon wanting to expand the resource development of the territory but at what cost? Any of the potential mineral and oil and gas resources of the Peel Basin are non renewable and their extraction will leave scars and possible contamination on the landscape and forever change the ecology of the region. Sites will last how long - 5, 10 maybe 20 years then they will shut down. While saying that sites will be cleaned up and remediation work done to return the site to the way they were is good the reality is that it is not likely. And with the changes that the current Federal government is making to environmental regulations it is probable that the sites will not be cleaned up or that the tax payers of the territory and Canada will wind up paying for the messes left behind. Current examples of this are the Faro mine cleanup and the gold mine in Yellowknife. Do we really want this?
The people and businesses who use the Peel Watershed and are most affected have had their say in the Peel Planning Commission’s Final Recommended Plan and this should be accepted by the Government of Yukon.
RUWA
The RUWA designation should be dropped as it will result in damage to the Peel watershed.
LUD
Accept the recommendations of the Peel River Planning Commission.
378. Website Submission at 4:57 PM
Final Recommended Plan
55% permanent withdrawal and protection is no good. To have good tourism product in the wilderness you cant have 45% having development. That is not a nature experience.
Concept C
This survey is way too long and complicated. Em done.
RUWA
I only support having a natural tourism corridor. The mining interests there should be bought out and all future mining development stopped. There are plenty of places to mine in the Yukon. The miners can go somewhere else. Respect what the area first nations want for land use planning in this area.
LUD
I want the original ones that Yukoners developed over seven years.
379. Website Submission at 7:08 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like that the Final Recommended Plan has most of the Peel Watershed as SMA. I would like to see more of the Peel Watershed as SMA
Concept A
I strongly oppose Concept A because so little of the Peel Watershed is PA.
Concept B
I strongly oppose Concept B because so little of the Peel Watershed is PA.
Concept C
I strongly oppose Concept C because so little of the Peel Watershed is PA.
Concept D
I strongly oppose Concept D because so little of the Peel Watershed is PA.
Summary
Please use the Commission's Final Recommended Plan for the Peel Watershed.
RUWA
I don't agree with the RUWA goal - the Commission's Final Recommended Plan for the Peel allows more development than I would like but I support the Commission's Final Recommended Plan because of the consultation process used.
LUD
Please use the Commission's Final Recommended Plan or make all of the Peel watershed PA.
380. Website Submission at 8:33 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process - it is the Yukon Plan.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
Concept A
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
Concept B
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
Concept C
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
Concept D
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
Summary
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
RUWA
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process - it is the Yukon Plan.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
LUD
Accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission final Recommended Plan. It was developed through a fair process - it is the Yukon Plan.
I do not support the Yukon governments alternative concepts.
381. Website Submission at 8:52 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
Concept A
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
Concept B
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
Concept C
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
Concept D
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
Summary
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
LUD
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan. Yukon Government should accept this plan. I disagree with the government's proposed alternative concepts.
382. Website Submission at 9:29 PM
Summary
I would like to see a plan that recognizes the importance of mining and other resource based industries. Mining won't kill tourism. People go to Dawson because of its mining history, not to admire the trees. Dredge #4 is an attraction because of the link to mining. Please work to ensure that *all* sectors of the economy are able to work in the area.
383. Website Submission at 9:49 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan does not respect the process agreed to by government and First Nations. The plan to follow, and the designations that appeal to me are those recommended by the Land Use Planning Committee established by the Final Agreements and supported by all Parties to the agreement.
Concept A
It is gravely concerning that YG is proposing something that will cause relations between YG and YFNs to be so strained. This plan clearly insults a process that had already been agreed upon. This issue is so divisive and is causing so much pain among Yukoners.
Summary
There are processes that have been established through over 20 years of negotiations with First Nations and both levels of government. How can a newly elected government with no experience in this area... and not having stated its position during the election...feel that it has the right to blatantly change its commitment to the Land Use planning process? This is a painful and disruptive course for long term stability for the Yukon. Sadly.
RUWA
I believe that the land use plan developed pursuant to the Final Agreements is the only way to move forward with protecting the values of the area. The plan was developed with the genuine involvement of all the Parties to the Final Agreements and represents an honest, open approach to developing a land use plan. To come out with another option as has been done, is an affront to land claim negotiations and agreements.
LUD
Please revisit the decision to disregard the Land Use Plan as recommended by the Land Use Planning Committee.
384. Website Submission at 10:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I strongly believe the Government of Yukon should fully support the Final Recommended Plan. Anything less than that makes a mockery of the democratic process that was inherent in the development of this plan over the course of the last several years.
Concept A
not acceptable
Concept B
not acceptable
Concept C
not acceptable
Concept D
not acceptable
RUWA
the only acceptable option is to go with the final agreement of the Peel Planning commision
LUD
go back to the final agreement and follow it
385. Website Submission at 10:27 PM
Final Recommended Plan
We have to protect this still mostly pristine wilderness as a great water reservoir for future generations. Therefore I strongly support the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
Not enough protected areas.
Concept B
Not enough protected areas.
Concept C
Way too many IMA Zones!
Concept D
Not enough protected areas & too many IMA zones..
RUWA
Not enough portection for the pristine wilderness in the Peel Watershed.
LUD
The only concept that guarantees a real protection of the Peel Watershed is the Final Recommended Plan. Please listen to the many Yukoners that want this area to remain pristine wilderness and adapt the Final Recommended Plan!
386. Website Submission at 10:38 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Please accept the final recommended plan as is, without variation...
387. Website Submission at 10:43 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the only concept which was developed by all concerned parties and therefor the only valid option! Please respect the FRP.
Concept A
New proposals do not change the approved consensus of the Final Recommended Plan. If the commonly agreed goal is "A", I do not want to choose between "B", "C" or "D".
Concept B
This is not enough. Please respect the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
Please hear it again: Respect the Final recommended Plan!
Concept D
And the 4th choice is the same: Please respect the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
In the sincere hope that we do live in a democratic and participative society which is looking forward to a bright, sustainable and just future for generations to come!
RUWA
New designations do not represent protection.
LUD
Please stick to the recommended plan.
388. Website Submission at 11:25 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Not enough protection of the land is a concern. As well, proposing a plan that doesn't include input from all major stakeholders is not acceptable.
RUWA
I don't have suggestions on different ways to designate the land. That's for the more informed to comment on.
LUD
I suggest going back to the Land Use Plan that was agreed to prior to the election, when there was input from the key stakeholders. I don't see how a solution developed only by the Territorial Government will be successful.
on February 20, 2013
389. Website Submission at 2:19 AM
Summary
I suggest this website and popups are confusing and needlessly complicated to the average citizen. Is it intentionaly so?
390. Website Submission at 9:17 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I agree with the final recommended plan. I strongly believe that it is very important to permanently protect the waterways. This plan was thoroughly developed over the course of years, and I think it does allow room for development while respecting and preserving the land, the wildlife, the culture, and the history of a place some call home.
391. Website Submission at 9:30 AM
Final Recommended Plan
STAY OUT OF THE PEEL!
LUD
KEEP OUT OF THE PEEL!
DO NOT ALLOW ANY TYPE OF MINING OR OTHER SUCH ACTIVITES IN THE PEEL AREA!!
392. Website Submission at 11:36 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan strikes a good balance between preservation of the land and mineral access. I urge the government to adhere to the suggestions outlined in the Final Recommended Plan. The other concepts put forward by this government simply open far too much of the watershed to mineral exploitation.
393. Website Submission at 12:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Protecting the river corridors while still allowing exceptions for exploration access is an appropriate solution for both preservation and resource development.
I would like to see no restrictions to our access for snowmobiles, atv's or boats.
Summary
I feel that the decisions regarding our land use policies are for Yukon residents only. We should not consider any comments made by any persons or groups who do not reside in our territory.
394. Website Submission at 12:14 PM
395. Website Submission at 12:54 PM
RUWA
I think this designation is capable of achieving it's goal, but that there needs to be active enforcement of all permit requirements and intensive management of the granting of permits.
LUD
None.
396. Website Submission at 1:12 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I strongly support the Final recommended plan, which was the outcome of several years of thourough research, collecting information of all parties involved.
This is a true democratic process, considering the opinion of all the people involved
Concept A
I am not supporting Concept A, B, C, or D.
I am in favour of the Final Recommended Plan
Concept B
I am not supporting Concept A, B, C, or D.
I am in favour of the Final Recommended Plan
Concept C
I am not supporting Concept A, B, C, or D.
I am in favour of the Final Recommended Plan
Concept D
I am not supporting Concept A, B, C, or D.
I am in favour of the Final Recommended Plan
Summary
I strongly support the Final recommended plan, which was the outcome of several years of thourough research, collecting information of all parties involved.
This is a true democratic process, considering the opinion of all the people involved
397. Website Submission at 1:25 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am willing to accept it all as the result of a comprehensive research and consultation process
398. Website Submission at 5:28 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I have some concerns about the compromise expressed in the Final Recommended Plan as I believe 100 per cent protection is more in line with the steps we need to take to ensure sustainability of the planet. However, I recognize that compromise is a workable solution.
Concept A
Again, I support the compromise expressed in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission’s Final
Recommended Plan.
Summary
I urge the Yukon government to recognize and act on the values expressed in the commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
My opinion is that the Yukon government should accept the land use designations of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
I believe that the Yukon government should access the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan as it is fair and balanced and keeps options open for the future.
399. Website Submission at 5:32 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I have some concerns about the compromise expressed in the Final Recommended Plan as I believe 100 per cent protection is more in line with the steps we need to take to ensure sustainability of the planet. However, I recognize that compromise is a workable solution.
Concept A
Again, I support the compromise expressed in the Peel Watershed Planning Commission’s Final
Recommended Plan.
Summary
I urge the Yukon government to recognize and act on the values expressed in the commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
My opinion is that the Yukon government should accept the land use designations of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
I believe that the Yukon government should access the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan as it is fair and balanced and keeps options open for the future.
400. Website Submission at 5:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan is the best suited option for the future of the peel watershed as well as the Yukon as a territory.
Concept A
To much uncertainty with relation to the development of RUWA
Concept B
To much uncertainty with relation to the development of RUWA
Concept C
The best of the 4 government concepts but no where near sufficient for the future of the watershed
Concept D
To much uncertainty with relation to the development of RUWA
LUD
I feel that the final recommendation plan is the best overall plan with respect to conservation and the value of the people. This plan should be the one that is implemented when determining the land use plan of the peel watershed. the four proposed plans by the government present to many uncertainties leaving loose development guidelines for the future of the region
401. Website Submission at 7:33 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan is the only option that even comes close to what I feel is the prudent governing decision for this watershed. Given the incredibly small amount of area on the planet that can still be classified as wilderness. And given all the inherent benefits to humans and non-humans of these wild lands and water bodies, I strongly know that we have a personal responsibility to preserve these for us now and for the health of future generations.
Short sited choices to pursue short term economic gratification will only serve a very few for a "brief" period of time and thus none of us in the longer term.
This government has within its power the possibility of leaving a legacy and mentoring a way of stewarding that will inspire courage, compassion and cooperation in a world that is in need of these.
Concept D
I have given my feelings and thoughts in the section before.
402. Website Submission at 9:27 PM
Concept D
I feel that this plan provides balance in protecting the environment while not choking out the possibility of prosperity.
403. Website Submission at 9:34 PM
LUD
The Yukon Government should accept the recommended plan as developed by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission. As a Yukoner, I feel strongly that with the heavy footprint of resource development, particularly quartz and placer mining and related exploration elsewhere in the territory means that an area like the Peel should be conserved as much as possible and sufficient areas of it removed from any possible industrial uses. This will be important for future generations of Yukoners to be able to appreciate and understand what wilderness is.
404. Website Submission at 9:52 PM
Summary
Please follow the original Peel Watershed plan. Throwing out those years of work and thousands of person hours in this revised process is a big mistake. Doing so will deeply mark and impinge on all future planning efforts, and not in a good way.
I accept that the original plan has flaws, it _is_ a compromise after all. I also accept that the proposed new land use designations remedy some of those shortcomings. However the changes will also, inevitably, introduce new ones. Especially so given the accelerated time schedule for the revisions.
This government's apparent disregard for due process and devaluing of the work of those that come before is alarming. This is one precedent which should not be set. If you follow through with this you are handing future government leaders the tools and tacit approval to overthrow _your_ works similarly.
I am concerned for the mess we are building for our children, as we careen whipsaw-like into the future, swinging from side to side with increasing polarization and intolerance for views not our own.
Please follow the original Peel Watershed plan, already a hard-won accord.
405. Website Submission at 10:11 PM
Final Recommended Plan
If this is what the planning commission recommended then we should go with this concept.
406. Website Submission at 11:03 PM
Summary
As a citizen and proud of our heritage, I am rather disappointed with the entire Peel Consultation process that has been put forward by the Yukon Government. It shows me that this government disrespects democracy, lacks a vision for the future, fails to find an acceptable balance between various parties, shows fiscal mismanagement by unwisely spending taxpayers money and ties up valuable human resources which could be put to good use elsewhere, i.e., housing, job creation, and economic diversification in the Yukon. So, I have stated my opinion. Show we that you are willing to listen: Protect the Peel, as recommended by the Final Umbrella Agreement.
RUWA
Please scrap the RUWA designation for the following reasons: it does not respect the Umbrella Agreement, which led to a decision by all interested parties to Protect the Peel. It's usage stems from an undemocratic process. Secondly, it is purposefully misleading to the general public to think that a pristine wilderness environment can be protected when economic development is of an invasive and destructive nature, i.e., roads and mines. Thirdly, the Yukon Government and in many cases, the mining industry in its present capacity has continually refused to regulate and protect the environment. In other words, what they say they might do, history has proven otherwise, i.e, mines contaminating the environment and refusing to clean up and the Yukon Government demanding retribution.
LUD
Please scrap the designations for the following reasons: it does not respect the Umbrella Agreement, which led to a decision by all interested parties to Protect the Peel. It's usage stems from an undemocratic process. Secondly, it is purposefully misleading to the general public to think that a pristine wilderness environment can be protected when economic development is of an invasive and destructive nature, i.e., roads and mines. Thirdly, the Yukon Government and in many cases, the mining industry in its present capacity has continually refused to regulate and protect the environment. In other words, what they say they might do, history has proven otherwise, i.e, mines contaminating the environment and refusing to clean up and the Yukon Government demanding retribution.
on February 21, 2013
407. Website Submission at 8:16 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan is the only plan that provides adequate protection of wilderness. It is also the only plan that truly represents the views of all stakeholders, through extensive and prolonged consultations. This plan must be approved and implemented.
Concept A
The amount of land that is truly protected is far too small.
Concept B
Very similar to concept A: again, the protected area is too small.
Concept C
The protected area is too small
Concept D
The protected area is too small.
LUD
The RUWA designation is vague and it is unclear how it would protect wilderness. The main components of permitting and reporting do very little to keep wilderness intact. Wilderness implies that the land would be kept in a wild state, so "RUWA" is a misnomer. My suggestion is to rename this designation to simply "Restricted Use Area" (RUA).
408. Website Submission at 8:55 AM
RUWA
At least one example of the various types and categories of ecosysyems in the area should be protected. Geological surveys and prospecting over the entire area should be done. Locations that have a high probability of containing economic ore bodies should be an IMArea or RUWArea to allow for mining into the future. Any mining should be done responsibly and reclamation done as mining progresses. Areas with little potential for economic mining could be considered to become park land. It should be noted that only a very small area in a region is economic to mine. If roads are put in and area, restrictions on hunting should be in place and leave no or minimal trace travelling and camping be encouraged and enforced.
409. Website Submission at 9:04 AM
Summary
Stick with the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
Definitely not by opening the area to exploration and especially by putting roads into the area. This would destroy the fragile eco-system of the area in no time. That area should be fully protected, and to be protected, it can't have any road access.
LUD
The Yukon and especially the Peel area is one of the last intact eco-system on EARTH. It has a lot more value to that itself than going to destroy it for what, 50 years max of mineral resources. After that what will we have? The government has to stop thinking about NOW, and think about the future, not the 20 years future, the 100 years future. Opening that area to mining would be the worse decision ever taken by the government. I come from Northern Québec, where those mistakes were made a long time ago. Look at it now, still a few mines open, fine. But a population that keeps dropping, because it depends only on a resource that is now disappearing and for the wilderness, it has been totally destroyed.There is no such thing as wilderness protection with mining. Lots of public money was spent to make the original recommended plan, the government should simply accept it.
410. Website Submission at 10:02 AM
Final Recommended Plan
you must be kidding! too much protection particularly in high potential and proven high potential mineral areas!
Concept A
I like it!
Concept C
no, too many protected areas in relation to opportunities to develop.
Concept D
no
RUWA
excellent idea! environmentla protection as well as allowing development. Why didnt the planning commission think of that?
LUD
looks good! but there needs to be a comprehensive review when development is required in some of these areas.
411. Website Submission at 11:40 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan
Summary
I only support the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan
RUWA
I only support the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan
LUD
I only support the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan
412. Website Submission at 12:20 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
Concept A
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
Concept B
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
Concept C
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
Concept D
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
LUD
The peel watershed is crown land and should be available to everyone.
That includes mining, tourism, etc.
We don't need more parks.
Use the existing laws to regulate access to the peel watershed, and protect the environment, the same as the rest of the Yukon.
This includes the right of free entry.
413. Website Submission at 12:30 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I fully support all aspects of the Final Recommended Plan. It is the only Plan I support.
As mentioned earlier, it is a balanced plan that truly protects a part of the area which is very important for the Yukon –now and in the future – and its current inhabitants; meanwhile it promises interim protection to another part, leaving room for future Yukoners to decide how they want to use the land, and; it gives room to develop part of the watershed.
The plan is the result of 6 years of consultations with all stakeholders. A democratic & fair process, everybody’s voice was heard if they desired so. This resulted in a plan that isn’t ideal for anyone – every one of us is making compromises, as it often goes in a good democracy. The process to the Final Recommended Plan followed the Umbrella Final Agreement, giving Yukon’s First Nations a clear voice in what they desire to happen with the land they use and need to sustain their lives.
Concept A
This concept does not appeal to me. The aspect that concerns me is that the concept isn’t balanced at all and was created by the Government of Yukon behind closed doors.
The only Plan I support is the Final Recommended Plan as presented by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. I suggest to NOT use this concept as proposed by the Government of Yukon but to follow the Final Recommended Plan – the only fair & balanced plan.
Concept B
This concept does not appeal to me. The aspect that concerns me is that the concept isn’t balanced at all and was created by the Government of Yukon behind closed doors.
The only Plan I support is the Final Recommended Plan as presented by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. I suggest to NOT use this concept as proposed by the Government of Yukon but to follow the Final Recommended Plan – the only fair & balanced plan.
Concept C
This concept does not appeal to me. The aspect that concerns me is that the concept isn’t balanced at all and was created by the Government of Yukon behind closed doors.
The only Plan I support is the Final Recommended Plan as presented by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. I suggest to NOT use this concept as proposed by the Government of Yukon but to follow the Final Recommended Plan – the only fair & balanced plan.
Concept D
This concept does not appeal to me. The aspect that concerns me is that the concept isn’t balanced at all and was created by the Government of Yukon behind closed doors.
The only Plan I support is the Final Recommended Plan as presented by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. I suggest to NOT use this concept as proposed by the Government of Yukon but to follow the Final Recommended Plan – the only fair & balanced plan.
Summary
I would like to include the following letters that I wrote in the past and that were published in both local papers. Both are related to this consultation process.
1.
Open letter to the Yukon Government,
For the past years the people in Yukon have been talking about the Peel River Watershed Protection. Public consultation has shown overwhelming support for the Peel Watershed to be protected – 80% to 90% of Yukoners wants to see at least 80% of the area protected, First Nations ask for 100% protection. Why does the Yukon Government not listen to the public opinion? Why does the Yukon Government put aside the Peel Planning Commission’s Recommended Plan like it was never written?
We’re currently in a mining boom and the Yukon Government happily supports this industry. This industry relies on non-renewable resources and isn’t infinite. It’s a finite industry. There’ll be tons of money coming into the territory in the near future but when all resources are used, the money will stop floating in. Hasn’t the Yukon Government learned from Faro? After the mining money is dried up, only costs are left. Despite new regulations, there will be enormous costs for the government to clean up after the industry. The environment will be diminished in value forever; the chemicals put in the ecosystem will never leave the system, instead they will be spread deeper into the environment. Roads and cuttings will have a disastrous effect on all wildlife and flora currently existing in Yukon.
What does this mean for the far future? Tourism is important for the Yukon economy. How interesting will the Yukon be for tourists when the wilderness isn’t the wilderness anymore? The argument can be made that it’ll be more accessible than before, thanks to all the roads put in by the mining industry. That might be true, but roads are not part of a wilderness experience. People come to the Yukon for an off-road experience; to be able to spend days and weeks in nature without coming across roads. Yukon will look just like Northern Alberta, not exactly a tourist destination. When Yukon cannot offer this experience anymore, what will be left of the tourism industry? They might as well stay down south, where a wilderness experience combined with development is already present. Where are we getting an economy for this territory if mining and tourism are both non-existing?
Why is the Yukon Government so arrogant to only think of short-term income? Why can’t in take into consideration that it’ll ruin the whole territory by opening it up to the mining industry? Future generations will need to be able to live on this land just like we do now. First Nations need the land the way it is now to be able to continue their traditional lifestyle. We are in no position to take that important part of their lives away from them. We need to leave a liveable territory for First Nations’ traditions and for all future generations. This means we need to search for sustainable industries in Yukon and the mining industry is not a sustainable industry.
So please Yukon Government, think of your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and the generations after that. Wilderness exists forever if it isn’t touched and changed and poisoned by humans. It’s self-sustaining, sustainable and makes for a good tourism industry. Think long-term, short-term is over before we know it – and then what are we going to do?
I vote for 100% protection of the Peel River Watershed. I moved to Yukon from a heavily industrialized and developed place to live close to the wilderness, to be able to experience the wilderness. There’s no money in the whole world that can replace this experience. Not for me and not for your great-grandchildren either. Keep them in mind before you make decisions that have a disastrous effect on the wilderness and the future economic system of Yukon.
Sincerely,
J. van Gulick, Whitehorse
April 2011
2.
After listening to some very good speeches by Yukoners concerned about the state of democracy in the Yukon and the Yukon Party's plans for the Peel, I entered the Legislative for the first time since I moved to the Yukon 6 years ago.
The hour in the legislative was a disappointing experience for me. When Liz Hanson asked questions regarding the new Peel plan put forward by the Yukon party earlier that week, Premier Pasloski said just a few words before having EMR minister Cathers reply on the remaining questions. Cathers did not directly answer any of the questions asked, he simply read prepared statements on the Peel topic. A statement that did not address the question asked but only referred Yukoners to the website where they can give their perspective on the Yukon Party Peel plan. Not only were no clear answers given by Cathers, the biggest shock to me was that the minister of the department of Environment had nothing to say! This sends a very clear message to me that the Yukon Party's focus in the Peel watershed is on Energy, Mines and Resources. Where is the voice of the Environment in this so called 'more fair and balanced' plan?
Other questions asked during question period were not answered any more directly than the Peel questions. Minister Nixon (Tourism) did not answer Sandy Silver's question as to why the Dredge #4 closing wasn't discussed with Premier Harper in person during his visit earlier this year. The only thing Nixon could do was to try to ridicule Silver's questions & concerns and talk about a motion he just put forward as well as the concerns that were raised in the spring when the decision was made by the federal government. I still have no clue why he didn't discuss Dredge #4 with Premier Harper though....
Can someone please explain to me how question period is helpful in this way? If questions are asked but no answers given and no real debate takes place, how can we call this a democracy? To me it felt like the Yukon Party was doing everyone else a 'favor' by just being there, pretending to care. To me the whole theatre I witnessed had nothing to do with governing the Territory - all I saw were people reading statements, other ministers were clearly bored and were just waiting for the hour to finish. Yes, I know that the Yukon party has a majority government (due to Canada's outdated election system currently in place), however they are supposed to represent all Yukoners, just as Ryan Leef is supposed to do that in Ottawa for us. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that they don't care about all Yukoners. The Yukoners they care about are the ones that agree with them. They say they want to hear from us regarding the Peel watershed, however they never said they are going to listen. If they cared for listening to all Yukoners, they would answer questions during question period and would not have come up with their own Peel plan.
In short, I am very displeased with what I witnessed last week and cannot believe that this is the way this beautiful Territory is governed. Call me naive but I believe politics can be more in-depth, caring and democratic than this.
- 960 replace name with [name protected under ATIPP Act], Whitehorse
November 2012
RUWA
To protect means to defend from invasion and/or loss (amongst other things). Since RUWAs leave room for new land use and surface access, this means that these areas are not protected at all.
Therefore I do NOT believe that RUWA designation can achieve its goal of protecting the values in an area. My suggestion is to increase the square miles of Protected Area designation in the Peel Watershed, instead of using the RUWA designation.
LUD
My suggestion is to dismiss the various plans that are presented by the Government of Yukon and to follow the Final Recommended Plan as laid out by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
The Final Recommended Plan is a balanced plan that includes true protection, interim protection as well as room for development. It also is fair in the way that it is based on years of public consultation with First Nations, the Yukon Government and other Yukoners who desired to have their voice heard. The plans proposed by the Government of Yukon are created behind closed doors, thereby not following the agreements laid out in the Umbrella Final Agreement.
414. Website Submission at 1:42 PM
Summary
Stick to the original plan arrived at in the 5 year consultation process.
RUWA
This is not a very realistic idea of preserving the Peel watershed as a wilderness area.
LUD
Stick to the plan that was arrived at in the consultation process.
415. Website Submission at 2:18 PM
Final Recommended Plan
GREAT PLAN - stick with it. I fully support this plan and would be very pleased if you moved forward with it.
Concept A
I think this plan provides no protection what so ever, except in the Tombstones and the headwaters of the Snake/Bonnet Plume. It seems the rest is open to development which seems like poor or no planning, but just lots of red tape.
Concept B
This plan seems to provide protection to the tomstones park (already protectedd) and the headwaters of the Snake/Bonnet plume. The rest of the areas see no protection, just red tape zones to discourage industry.
Concept C
I don't understand where industry is allowed and what is protected, but it seems like there isn't real protection for any areas. Very confusing, I do not support this plan.
Concept D
I support the Peel Commisson's final recommended plan. This consultation process seems like a farce. I am getting angry at filling out this form, because I get the feeling, the government is simply going to go with what they want and doesn't give a squirrel [vulgar language removed] about the public's input.
Summary
Please implement the Final Recommended plan.
RUWA
Yes, first you can implement the Peel Commission's final recommended plan.
Second - you can cut through all the red tape by making your designations clear and coherent instead of trying to confuse people and the process manipulating the process to try and achieve your designated goals versus letting the public making informed decisions.
LUD
Yes, please simplify instead of trying to trick people.
416. Website Submission at 2:46 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support this plan and the process of its development.
Concept A
This does not appeal to me at all.
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept B
This does not appeal to me at all.
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept C
This does not appeal to me at all.
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept D
This does not appeal to me at all.
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
RUWA
I do not like the new category you have created.
I think it is confusing. A plan is to provide clarity.
Please accept the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land use Planning Commission.
LUD
I do not like the new category you have created.
I think it is confusing. A plan is to provide clarity.
Please accept the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Land use Planning Commission
417. Website Submission at 3:22 PM
Final Recommended Plan
We don't have many of so prestine areas left on the planet. We should do everything possible to protect those areas with theur wildlife as much as possible.
Concept A
I favour the Final Recommended Plan. Any less protection is not acceptable.
Concept C
I favour the final recommended plan
Concept D
See prvious comments.
418. Website Submission at 3:22 PM
Concept D
Concepts A-D seem to all permit roads in the Wind/Bonnet Plume/Snake basins. Roads will destroy the wilderness value of these exceptionally beautiful areas.
Summary
There is a very significant cost in undermining the values of Canadian democracy by ignoring the most of the outcomes from an exhaustive public consultation process. At a time when such values are under serious threat, it seems very unwise to undermine government credibility.
RUWA
This question is unclear. It is clearly YTG's responsibility to manage it's files actively. However, in the case of wilderness management the overwhelming priority is to protect 'wilderness' and this includes any development which would disrupt the area, including, in particular, roads, railways and the like.
LUD
The compromise proposal to keep 80% of the Peel Watershed as undisturbed wilderness seems a wise decision for the future of the Territory.
419. Website Submission at 4:36 PM
Concept D
The exploration industry is vital to the economic viability of the territory. The final recommended plan finds a balanced approach that provides certainty for all parties and provides a fair and balanced approach for the Peel Watershed. A decision to leave this issue open or to deviate from the final recommended plan will have a serious impact on the economic viability in the territory.
Yukon has a resource based economy and we have over 100 employees between our companies that are reliant on that industry. I sincerely hope this issue can be put to rest and that we can move forward with the recommended plan to ensure the future prosperity of all Yukoners.
As a lifelong Yukoner i sincerely believe this plan allows for our resource based industry while still providing significant protection in the Peel Watershed.
420. Website Submission at 6:34 PM
Summary
you should follow the very first conclusions of the first consultations which took years to complete, you should not throw all that work away, you should not rewrite new rules, you sould be democratic and accept the results of the work that has been done and not destroy the trust of the people
RUWA
you should follow the very first conclusions of the first consultations which took years to complete, you should not throw all that work away, you should not rewrite new rules, you sould be democratic and accept the results of the work that has been done and not destroy the trust of the people
LUD
you should follow the very first conclusions of the first consultations which took years to complete, you should not throw all that work away, you should not rewrite new rules, you sould be democratic and accept the results of the work that has been done and not destroy the trust of the people
421. Website Submission at 7:59 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am concerned that you haven't followed the negotiated Land Use Plan
Summary
Seriously. People negotiated for years, gave up positions, and CAME TO AGREEMENT on how to manage the Peel. I do not support ignoring this position with something you made up without consultation.
RUWA
I think you should use the designations as negotiated in the Peel Land Use Plan.
LUD
Yes, change them back to the negotiated designations
422. Website Submission at 8:24 PM
Summary
I support the Final Recommended Plan.
423. Website Submission at 8:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the size of the areas that are designated SMA and WA. I have no concerns with this plan.
Concept A
No appeal. Allows for too much development and not enough protection.
Concept B
No appeal. just a variation of the previous concept.
Concept C
Still not enough PA.
Concept D
This concept has more Pa but still not as good as the final recommended plan.
Summary
Go with the final recommended plan .
RUWA
It cannot achieve this goal. A wilderness area has no roads and this designation allows them.
LUD
No.
424. Website Submission at 9:03 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
Concept A
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
Concept C
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
Concept D
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
Summary
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
RUWA
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
LUD
The peel required mining exploration before any proposals
425. Website Submission at 9:52 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The amount of consultation appeals to me, as well as the balance between development and protection of this important resource.
Concept A
I am concerned by the fact that there is no real protection.
Concept B
I am concerned that this option doesn't really provide protection of key ecological values. I also believe that the ecological and conservation values are underestimated in the map.
Concept C
Same concerns - the RUWA is designed to be mislead. It does not provide real protection.
Concept D
Same as before - no real protection.
RUWA
This designation needs to actually protect wilderness areas. I feel like the government is trying to fool people into thinking that the area will be protected when the idea is to allow development.
LUD
This should provide real protection for wilderness areas.
426. Website Submission at 10:10 PM
LUD
I, [name protected under ATIPP Act], support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Planning Commission.
The writing is on the wall - is the Yukon Party reading it?
Please plan for the future.
Thank you.
on February 22, 2013
427. Website Submission at 8:57 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
Concept A
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
Concept B
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
Concept C
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
Concept D
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
Summary
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
RUWA
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
LUD
Monsieur le premier ministre Darrell Pasloski,
Je vous écris aujourd'hui pour exprimer mon soutien indéfectible au plan de développement du bassin hydrographique de la Peel comme recommandé par la défunte commission chargée d’étudier la question.
La commission a œuvré pendant sept ans et a fait de nombreuses consultations publiques avant de rédiger son rapport définitif pour l'aménagement du bassin hydrographie de la Peel. Le rapport recommande la protection complète de 80 % de la région.
Après des années d’étude et d’analyse minutieuse et la contribution d’un large éventail d’intervenants, le plan final recommandé est équitable et présente une position de compromis à la demande de protection à 100 % du territoire des Premières nations et de nombreux Yukonnais et Yukonnaises.
Le plan final recommandé est la seule option équilibrée avec 55 % des terres protégées en permanence, 25 % de façon provisoire et 20 % avec possibilité de développement. Aucun des concepts mis de l’avant par le gouvernement du Yukon ne peut assurer une protection véritable en raison de l’allocation pour les routes d'accès et de surface.
En acceptant le plan final recommandé par la Commission du bassin hydrographique de la Peel, nous respectons l'Accord-cadre définitif et les Ententes définitives des Premières nations.
L'introduction de nouvelles désignations d'utilisation du sol et de nouveaux concepts n'est pas appropriée à ce stade final du processus.
En conclusion, je vous exhorte à respecter les recommandations du plan final de la Commission afin de garder les options ouvertes pour les générations futures en protégeant une grande partie de la nature sauvage du Yukon.
428. Website Submission at 9:01 AM
Final Recommended Plan
It all works for the long term.
Concept A
If we are trying to protect the river corridors this is not possible with activities on both sides as access accross in multiple locations would be required in the future for any development in 6, 8 or 9.
Concept B
Same as in concept a. it is not possible to develop areas in 6,8 and 9 with out crossing and affecting the river corridors.
Concept C
Same as in concept a and b. it is not possible to develop areas in 6,8 and 9 with out crossing and affecting the river corridors.
Concept D
Same as in concept a, b and c. it is not possible to develop areas in 8 and 9 with out crossing and affecting the river corridors.
RUWA
The points are guidelines only not policy documents. There are too many "may be allowed". Who decides if the activities are allowed, and who will enforce the rules as there are not enough staff to monitor and enforce the activities in remote areas. Any designation with may be is an open door policy.
LUD
I believe the final peel plan provides the best long term view. We do not need to develop every inch of the Territory today. The resources will still be there in the future as will the demand. The final plan allows for future review. We can not supply power and or a work force for any further development which directly benefits the residents of the territory at this time. Take a breath and slow down and deal with the current mining and environmental issues by having adequate staff to review and enforce the current regulations. We can not afford another faro or mount nansen clean up bill.
429. Website Submission at 9:28 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan preserves too much area from much-needed development.
Concept A
I prefer this option as it has the most land under active management. However,areas of high mineral potential should be integrated management, not RUWA. The problem with making choices here is that layers showing mineral potential are not included. These are necessary to use as a basis for comparison. We need to know what we're losing if the area is made a park.
Summary
This is a flawed process. First of all, the map layers are not sufficiently detailed to know what one is giving up if it's given a restrictive designation. For instance, there are no mineral deposits or mineral potential designations shown. How do we know which map polygons have the best potential to secure Yukon's economic future? I don't want to preclude access to those areas with a park-like designation or with restrictions to access to those areas. Secondly, showing tourism values covering the whole southern part of the area is misleading: very few, probably fewer than 20 every year, tourists actually venture more than a day hike off the rivers. The vast regions between the river corridors are rarely visited, except possibly by guided big game hunters - which brings up another issue. They are surely the biggest threat to wildlife - why are they not being restricted? If this type of industry, which clearly kills wildlife, is allowed in these areas, then industries that don't kill wildlife should be allowed too. I understand the impact of industry on habitat, but the mineral exploration and mining industries are localized and relatively short term 10-20 years and wildlife return. FInally, why should wilderness preservation trump economic values? A healthy economy gives us the luxury of land preservation. One must be in place before the other. Yukon's dependency on Ottawa is the most direct indicator of an unhealthy economy - we can't afford to preserve all this land!
RUWA
I'm in favour of land use designations that involve active management as opposed to outright or de facto preservation. Active management means that much needed development activity can occur, but only if it can meet protection thresholds
430. Website Submission at 9:35 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The recommended plan provides a balanced approach to respect the needs of Yukoners for wilderness and economic development.
Concept D
This concept provides
431. Website Submission at 10:21 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Please go with the Final Recommended Plan. Personally, I would have preferred to see 100% protection for the region - but I respect and appreciate the hard work and compromise that the Commission, First Nations and participants put into coming up with the Final Recommended Plan - and believe we can do nothing greater than honour their work and the need to preserve, for all future generations of the WORLD, this most precious wilderness.
432. Website Submission at 11:24 AM
Final Recommended Plan
None
Concept A
Too restictive
Concept B
Moderatly better than A.
Concept C
2nd best
Concept D
This is the best option.
Summary
It is exptremely important this plan is undertaken in a balanced approach. Too much eaither way will kill the Yukon and its economy. There are a vocal few who are on the extremes of each side. A good plan will likely anger both sides of the argument. this plan is critcal and will be used as a basis for future land plans and BALANCE is the most important aspect.
RUWA
- Must be a balanced process (Mining, First Nations, Environemtnal).
- I think this is a good designation.
- Need to define how/what "actively managed" is going to be conmpleted.
LUD
None - Seem to be a good balance.
433. Website Submission at 2:07 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Hunting in areas where developement access has been opened up is more detrimental to wildlife than the developement itself . I would curtail big game outfitting before mining or oil and gas developement , that happens in a regulated manor . Don't bend over backward's to accomadate those who only see totall conservation as the only use . We have good laws that promote responsible developement .
RUWA
Don't bend over backward's to accomadate those who only see totall conservation as the only use . We have good laws that promote responsible developement .
LUD
Don't bend over backward's to accomadate those who only see totall conservation as the only use . We have good laws that promote responsible developement .
434. Website Submission at 3:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
I don't like the proposed land use designations because they open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept B
I don't like the proposed land use designations because they open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept C
I don't like the proposed land use designations because they open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept D
I don't like the proposed land use designations because they open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Summary
I'm opposed to any mining exploration and development in the Peel watershed and would like to see tourism and outfitting activities restricted further.
RUWA
I support the Final Recommended Plan (FRP) and feel that the new proposed categories are simply a back door entry to exploitation of the land.
LUD
I think they should be abandoned and the FRP adopted.
435. Website Submission at 3:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the final recommended plan.
Concept A
I don't like the proposed land use designations because the open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept B
I don't like the proposed land use designations because the open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept C
I don't like the proposed land use designations because the open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Concept D
I don't like the proposed land use designations because the open the door to much more exploration and activities than the FRP.
Summary
I am opposed to any mining, exploration and development in the peel watershed and would like to see tourism and outfitting activities restricted further.
RUWA
I strongly support the final recommended plan (FRP) and feel that the new proposed categories are simply a back door entry to exploitation of the land.
LUD
should be abandoned and the FRP should be adopted.
436. Website Submission at 4:03 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Peel should be left protected.
Concept A
Protect the Peel
Concept B
Protect the Peel
Concept C
Protect the Peel
Concept D
Protect the Peel
Summary
Live by the sword--Die by the sword. Democracy gave you life, democracy will take it away.
RUWA
I have no 'protect the peel' bumper stickers, but I am now seriously concerned about the lack of respect for the Yukon tax payer & democracy itself that this gov'mt has shown. We have already paid for this survey & although I did not entirely agree with the outcome, my neighbours decided that the Peel should be protected. My opinion today is to allow no further changes to the Land Use policy and it will be reflected in my vote in the next Yukon election.
437. Website Submission at 6:21 PM
Final Recommended Plan
none.
Why cut it up like that. If the area known as the peel gets cut up into small chunks it will be easy to just push the boundaries around to suit.
Leave it as 'the peel' area. Make it into a National Park.
When other areas of the yukon have been exploited and returned to the wild then perhaps one can exchange a few areas and put some of the regenerated ares into NPs and look at using some of the peel area for mining only temporarily and only underground mining at that.
Concept A
not enouugh protected areas; the whole of the peel area should be kept as one and turned into a national park. no divisions.
Concept B
not enouugh protected areas; the whole of the peel area should be kept as one and turned into a national park. no divisions.
Concept C
not enouugh protected areas, but better than previous concepts; the whole of the peel area should be kept as one and turned into a national park. no divisions.
Concept D
not enouugh protected areas; the whole of the peel area should be kept as one and turned into a national park. no divisions.
This concept is better that A and B. A bit more PA, but not enough.
Summary
Not taking a wholistic view. Lets finish mining other areas before spoiling this one. When the old mining areas are returned to the wild perhaps then some of the peel area could be swopped with the areas that have been turned into PAs
RUWA
By turning RUWA areas into a national park a RUWA designation will then not be prone to mining grabs and spoiling. Allow to revisit in 50 years.
LUD
I don't like it. RUWA should be a national park type designation. No commercial exploitation.
438. Website Submission at 6:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended plan is highly unfair to the mining industry and hurts the Yukon economy
Concept A
Concept A strikes a balance between the mining industry and the environment. This is my first choice.
Concept B
Concept B strikes a balance between the mining industry and the environment. This is my second choice.
Concept C
Concept C strikes a balance between the mining industry and the environment. This is my third choice.
Concept D
Concept D strikes a balance between the mining industry and the environment, compared to the Peel Final Recommended Plan. This is my fourth choice.
439. Website Submission at 6:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The final consultation has the most non-changeable protection and this is crucial to protection. Also, please respect the first consultation.
Concept A
The use of the RUWA is used excessively in all 4 concepts. RUWA is not protection. It would just add another level of environmental assessment that should be in all use of Yukon Land as our environmental laws are antiquated.
Concept B
To much IMA in the Northern part of the peel.
Concept C
Again to much IMA and RUWA
Concept D
IMA in the Northern tip is correlated to the oil and gas potential, I am open to the idea of natural gas in the Yukon just not in the Peel Watershed.
RUWA
This is not protection as the land can still be utilized for economic and political gain.
440. Website Submission at 7:58 PM
Summary
I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
441. Website Submission at 8:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended plan.
442. Website Submission at 9:22 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I would like the government to accept the initial plan.
Concept A
it is not an option for me. What is the value of areas #11, 12 and 14 in the middle of IMA areas....
Concept B
it is not an option for me. What is the value of areas #11, 12 and 14 in the middle of IMA areas....
Concept C
it is not an option for me. What is the value of areas #11, 12 and 14 in the middle of IMA areas....
Concept D
it is not an option for me. What is the value of areas #11, 12 and 14 in the middle of IMA areas....
Summary
I appreciate the consultation process but just regret that the initial plan recommendations have not been taken into consideration.
RUWA
I don't know how you can manage protect critical areas and authorize exploration and + projects. it seems not to be compatible.
LUD
I would have preferred to keep the Plan as recommended after the 6 years consultation process. I still do not understand why this democratic process has not been accepted.
I also have difficulties with mixing zones within same areas. If you put a PA zone in the middle of areas where exploration and operation are authorized, it makes no sense for me.
Finally, if you define a PA as "to protect key areas containing significant ecological, wilderness and cultural values", why PA areas can be different in regards of projects? If you consider an area to be PA in option 1, it should be the same in all options because it means that you agree that this area is valuable.
on February 23, 2013
443. Website Submission at 7:11 AM
Summary
The Peel water concept A should be accepted. If not this, make a park with all the rules and regulations that go along with this. If it is to be proctected, it should be protected from evryone, not just industrial development, but also from tourism. The set of rules that they need to follow should be strict and access regulated to prevent people from loving the peel to death.
444. Website Submission at 9:26 AM
Summary
I support only the Final Recommended Plan. it is the result of transparent, extensive consultation and negotiation with all affected stakeholders. It is a compromise that balances everyone's use of the land but particularly respects genuine conservation for future generations.
I resent that public money is being spent to consult on this issue AGAIN. Consultation has already resulted in the Final Recommended Plan. It's almost as if you're asking to "consult" because the public and all of the participants got it "wrong" the first time.
445. Website Submission at 10:05 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The Ecological and Conservation designation seems inappropriately small
Concept A
The very little PA designation, especially around the four major rivers in this area
Concept B
The very little PA designation, especially around the four major rivers in this area
Concept C
The very little PA designation, especially around the four major rivers in this area
Concept D
The very little PA designation, especially around the four major rivers in this area
RUWA
Be very frugal on who is approved for exploration/economical activity in this area. Also, there needs to be more than just a plan for reclamation in place before approval. Money, in full, needs to be set a side for any sort of environmental damage, which is inevitable.
LUD
The point in the RUWA concerned about protecting the 'viewscape' of a corridor is absurd. Protecting the entire corridor should be the main concern, as a corridor is what many animals use to migrate.
446. Website Submission at 10:33 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I am concerned that the remaining areas that are not protected will destroy the protected areas. Like I stated before -- I am not against mining in the yukon but I strongly believe some areas should be left completly untouched like the peel.
RUWA
There are area in the yukon that should not be open to exploration and mining. The Peel watershed should be one of these areas. Be a responsible government and leave some pristine land for the generations to come. I am not against mining. But I am against mining in the peel watershed.
LUD
Turn the Peal watershed into a territoreal park.
447. Website Submission at 10:36 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan was agreed to by all parties involved in the Commission. For that reason alone it should be approved, as decisions that were arrived at by consensus should have a higher value than arbitrary decisions made by politicians who are favouring mineral and mining interests. The development of this plan also involved much more input from local people and traditional ecological knowledge, which is something that the government claims to value.
Concept A
This plan is not acceptable to me or most everyone in the Yukon, judging by the public meetings I've attended.
Concept B
not acceptable
Concept C
not acceptable
Concept D
This is the best of the 4 but still is far inferior to the Final Recommended Plan. I feel that the new concepts proposed by the government are extremely deceptive showboating because you are proposing that we select one of four bad options. The final recommended plan is the only plan that should be considered here.
RUWA
Reclamation requirements are severely lacking currently (only one certified reclaimed mine in all of Yukon). I have no faith that EMR would treat proponents in the Peel area any differently than proponents anywhere else. Requiring land users to submit reclamation plans without any compliance and enforcement will not incent any actual reclamation activities. Timelines need to be established and followed.
LUD
The RUWA designation should not be applied. It is a deceptive way of implying a higher level or protection than actually exists, and would make the Peel plan different than all other completed land use plans. Active management is also a deceptive term. I am not sure that land use planners realize the extent of monitoring that would have to be undertaken in order to detect changes to the environment in a comprehensive and sensitive way. This environmental monitoring would be extremely expensive in this remote place and I doubt the government would be willing to commit much more resources to the process. If a change is detected than approvals issued for the area would have to be changed or cancelled. Would this not allow the opportunity for proponents to pursue legal action?
448. Website Submission at 11:17 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I don't like this plan because it closes off too much of our natural resources to development. It also protects the interests of a very small group of businesses who collectively add very little to the economy of the Yukon, this is not fair or right.
Concept A
I like this concept the best because it allows controlled access to resources of all kinds including guiding and outfitting while still protecting the "sidewalk view" for river trips. The thing I like the most is that using the RUWA example here, we are not limiting ourselves to a permanently binding decision for the future of our economy and territory.
Concept B
This confines the natural corridors for ease of road access from the Demster Hiway. To me it would make no sense to consider RUWA in area '6', '8' & '9' without the ability to get there easily.
Concept C
No! There is far too much potential in area '9' for natural resources to eliminate such a large area at this time.
Concept D
Same as my thoughts on Concept C. This is not appropriate due to the unnecessary permanent closure of too much land.
Summary
I believe that we cannot today, make permanent decisions on the land and resources of the Yukon that would render us incapable of selling our resources in the future. Protect the areas concerned through permitting, regulating and policing rather than closing them off for good. We have lots of protected areas and the Peel, in particular, is an area that very few ever see. The natural resources are far more important to the future of our territory than protecting the 'holidays' of a very small contingent of wealthy people.
RUWA
I like the new RUWA criteria, except for the .2% part. I think the area should be permitted on a case by case study. Miners and drillers have to go where the resource is.
449. Website Submission at 11:39 AM
RUWA
YTG should stay with the final recommended plan. No if and or buts about it. YTG should respect democracy and represent ALL the Yukoners. They should have brought foward any suggestions that they had at the time when they commissioned the people that worked on the plan. Instead of coming up with their own sponsored oil and gas ideas. My opinion is to except the final recommended plan and not to treat it with disrespect.
LUD
No leave it the way the original plan should be there was lots of work and thought put into the plan so just leave it be. Yukon Party does not have a stand point and swings which ever way to get into power and mislead Yukoners on their policy to get their votes. All the parties should respect each other and work together as team to achieve the goals that Yukoners want. If they can not do that they should have a not misleading referendum.
450. Website Submission at 11:45 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Planning Commission’s 2011 Final Recommended Plan, recommending permanent protection of 55% of the watershed, interim protection of 25% and carefully regulated industrial development in the remainder. This is a fair and balanced approach to land use planning in the Peel.
The Peel’s wilderness supports tourism and guide outfitting industries. Wilderness cannot be preserved by ‘actively managing’ roads, mines and oil and gas development. Wilderness needs real protection.
The Commission's 2011 Final Recommended Plan is the only legitimate plan that balances the environment and the economy, and that respects land claims agreements with First Nations. Please implement it to preserve the Peel Watershed as a legacy for all Canadians.
LUD
RUWA designation is misleading - this designation should be placed into the IMA designation with the yellow color because it is essentially the same thing, only with loopholes. The light green color gives the visual that there is going to be protection in the area which really is not accurate.
451. Website Submission at 11:52 AM
RUWA
YTG should go with the recommended plan that took years of research and skill to develop, instead of trying to toss away the recommended plan. I believe that if the Yukon Party respected the people of the Yukon they would not even try to low ball this plan. It is disrespectful that they did not mention that they were looking at these options before they were voted in to office. People come to the Yukon for the beauty of it, not to see the Government destroying the land. By destroying the lands nothing is left behind for our future children to see other than pictures of what it use to look like. If you really want to know what people think about this, have Yukoners and just Yukoners vote on it, let us, the people that love this land choose.
LUD
I suggest that we stick with the recommended plan and respect the work that was put into it.
452. Website Submission at 11:56 AM
Concept A
The land use planning process established under the UFA was a negotiated comprmise or exchange of aboriginal rights to the entire territory for the retention of a small percentage of land and signifiacnt influence over the remaining crown lands. Respect the process, respect the recommendations and stop the manipulation.
Concept B
The land use planning process established under the UFA was a negotiated comprmise or exchange of aboriginal rights to the entire territory for the retention of a small percentage of land and signifiacnt influence over the remaining crown lands. Respect the process, respect the recommendations and stop the manipulation.
Concept C
The land use planning process established under the UFA was a negotiated comprmise or exchange of aboriginal rights to the entire territory for the retention of a small percentage of land and signifiacnt influence over the remaining crown lands. Respect the process, respect the recommendations and stop the manipulation.
Concept D
The land use planning process established under the UFA was a negotiated comprmise or exchange of aboriginal rights to the entire territory for the retention of a small percentage of land and signifiacnt influence over the remaining crown lands. Respect the process, respect the recommendations and stop the manipulation.
Summary
I support the Peel Planning Commission recommendations. I am offended that Yukon Government fails to honour treaties and has no understanding of the spirit and intent of these agreements established for all Yukonners. Given the behaviour of Yukon in implementing treaties, I see no benefit to LUP in other areas of Yukon. This government consistently misinterprets the final agreements and thrives on conflict and manipulation. Not a proud moment in Yukon history.
LUD
The land use planning process established under the UFA was a negotiated compromise or exchange of aboriginal rights to the entire territory for the retention of a small percentage of land and significant influence over the remaining crown lands. Respect the process, respect the recommendations and stop the manipulation.
453. Website Submission at 12:44 PM
RUWA
In my opinion there should be more emphasis on Protected Areas and less on RUWA's. This area is hyper-sensitive to industrial-type disturbances and as such if even one good-intentioned mining operation goes off side it could have very dire and long-term consequences for the Peel Watershed...and of course they would likely be irreversible.
LUD
I think that the Wilderness River Cooridor concept is short-sighted; while the riparian areas are indeed some of the most critical habitats, the flora and fauna outside these areas are intertwined with the health of the riparian and as such protecting one area while offering a lesser form of protection for areas outside the river corridors will not likely have the desired effect.
454. Website Submission at 1:51 PM
RUWA
I like the concept of restricted use. I personally would like to see an implementation that will consider ALL activities, and monitor ALL activities, including mining, but also any activity that pertains to tourism or other "wilderness use". I would not appreciate the grandfathering of any activity on account of being more benign than the next.
LUD
Keeping options open for the future is, in my opinion, key to the plan. Setting it aside for any specific group of enterprises, and then slamming the door, is the worst of scenarios.
455. Website Submission at 1:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The designations do not appeal to me because they are a severe weakening the the Planning Commission's final recommendations. It concerns me greatly that the designations have been redesigned to allow more access and development.
Concept A
Nothing appeals to me because there is far too much access and more uses being allowed. This concept should not be implemented.
Concept B
Again, this is not appealing at all because it allows too much access and shared uses.
Concept C
It does not appeal to me because it does not protect existing wilderness.
Concept D
This is not appealing either because it recognizes mineral interests in the central Snake River area. Please do not consider this.
Summary
I am very concerned that the government could not accept the Peel Planning Commission's recommendations. You are not listening to the majority of citizens. Please drop your own plan; there is no imperative to allow more development in this generation. I suggest you wait at least 25 years and then perhaps this can be revisited. Mineral extraction in this area is not feasible at the moment in any case.
RUWA
I don't agree with this designation which is a deviation from the Planning Commission's final plan. This designation would allow surface access. It would essentially ruin pristine wilderness because it would allow land distrubance. It is not acceptable no matter how much specific activities would be managed. There should be no activities allowed.
LUD
These designations are what the Yukon government wants but they are not what the majority of Yukoners want. These designations greenwash a pro-development agenda. Please return to the Peel Planning Commission designations.
456. Website Submission at 1:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I do not agree with the Final Recommended Plan and permanent withdrawal and protection of such a vast area. Protection and conservation of the river corridors could easily have been accomplished by keeping the protected areas within the valley bottoms directly adjacent to the rivers. Most if not all cultural and ecological values would be contained within this region as well
Concept A
This is the desired concept as it provides the best balance for the environment and the economy on an ongoing basis
Concept B
Not the preferred choice
Concept C
Not the preferred choice
Concept D
Not the preferred choice
Summary
The Yukon Government should not allow anonymous submissions. A name and address should be provided without exception. If you want your opinion to matter, be willing to stand up and be counted
RUWA
Strict management and enforcement of the eventual legislated regulatory regime in RUWA areas will provide the required protection for all environmental values
LUD
I would like to see Concept A adopted as it would provide a far more equitable balance for both environmental value protection and economic value protection at the same time
457. Website Submission at 2:07 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The protection of the Special Management Area (SMA) and Wilderness Area (WA) designations appeal to me because there will be no issuance of new rights and surface access.
Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation appeals to me.
Concept A
The Land Use Designations under Concept A do not offer enough protection. I agree with the Peel Planning Commissions Report.
Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation appeals to me.
Concept B
The protection of the The protection of the Special Management Area (SMA) and Wilderness Area (WA) designations appeal to me because there will be no issuance of new rights and surface access.
Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation appeals to me.
Concept C
The protection of the Special Management Area (SMA) and Wilderness Area (WA) designations appeal to me because there will be no issuance of new rights and surface access.
Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation appeals to me.
Concept D
The protection of the Special Management Area (SMA) and Wilderness Area (WA) designations appeal to me because there will be no issuance of new rights and surface access.
Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation appeals to me.
Summary
I agree with the land use designations outlined within the Final Recommended Plan. This area requires a high level of environmental protection consistent with the Permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the region under Special Management Area (SMA) designation. The area should become a Territorial Park.
RUWA
This area should become a territorial park with no mining or development.
LUD
Please follow the recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission and the First Nations whose traditional territories are within the Peel watershed.
458. Website Submission at 2:24 PM
RUWA
Please respect and recognize the original plan, which is what the majority of Yukoners wish to see. Protect the area as that plan recommended
I do not support the amended version YG is trying to implement now
Thank you
W.[name protected under ATIPP Act]
459. Website Submission at 2:31 PM
RUWA
I support the final recommended plan. I
LUD
I support the final recommended plan. I understand the Yukon Government participated in the initial planning, which gives me full confidence in saying the the Final Recommended Plan be the one that is chosen. If the government withheld information while everyone else in the process came to a consensus, I recommend that take that lesson for the next of many Land Use planning events and remember to share their information in a transparent manner.
460. Website Submission at 2:41 PM
Concept A
Use concept A
Concept B
too restricted for development
Concept C
too restricted for development
Concept D
too restricted for development
461. Website Submission at 4:35 PM
Summary
I just can't believe how one-sided this whole debate is. YG had a plan and now is letting big business and economic interests control changes. It wastes tax payers money to continue these consultations without really consulting... it seems like YG asks for input but never really listens. Furthermore, this format for providing input requires a significant amount of understanding about land use planning and poses huge barriers for people with literacy or technology barriers to participate. Personally, I think YG should stick with the initial plan.
462. Website Submission at 7:02 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Surface access of the IMA Zone IV lands would be devastating to this pristine wilderness area. Oil and Gas should never be developed in this area. Outfitting concessions and tourism should be allowed to continue in this area as long as the numbers are controlled and the land is being used and respected appropriately.
Concept A
I am concerned by the way that the Yukon Government is trying to allow mining access into sensitive ecological areas. Restricted visual obstructions and noise reduction?! Not acceptable.
Concept B
The Yukon Government should accept the original recommendations made for the Peel Watershed land use. Mining access in this area is unacceptable. Water crossings, noise reduction, and visual obstruction restrictions are unacceptable. I want to see more protection of this area. Oil and gas should never be allowed in the Peel Watershed.
Concept D
Oil and Gas exploration should never be allowed in the Peel Watershed. Mining exploration, surface disturbances, water crossings, noise and visual obstructions should not be allowed. This area needs our protection. This plan does not respect the public recommendations for this area.
RUWA
I would like to see my government offer more protection for this significant and special ecological area. The proposed plan does not go far enough. Mining and mineral exploration should not be allowed in this area.
LUD
The proposed management plan from the Yukon Government is not acceptable in my view. I would like to see this area properly protected, this does not include allowable surface disturbance or river crossings. These scars on the land cannot be removed. The entire area contains key ecological, wilderness and culturally significant resources. If the Yukon Government will not support the wishes of the citizens of the Yukon, then we will not support this Government.
463. Website Submission at 7:23 PM
Concept D
Of all the concepts presented here, this one in my view, is the most acceptable for all parties concerned. My second choice would concept B.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum.
464. Website Submission at 8:37 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the permanent withdrawal and protection of 55% of the area. Seems like a reasonable balance. It is important to protect a sizable chunk of land because development can have impacts that are far-reaching (e.g. roads).
Interim withdrawal of Hart River area provides time to assess various factors.
Concept A
River corridors not large enough to ensure protection of area from development. River crossings not compatible with protection of land from development.
PA designation -- should not allow any road development.
Not enough land protected from new mineral or old and gas activity.
Concept B
Still not enough protection from road development and future mineral, oil and gas development.
Concept C
This one is a bit better than A and B in that it offers protection for Snake R. But if roads are allowed under this PA designation, then it doesn't offer enough protection.
Still think the river corridors don't provide enough protection from roads, river crossings or development.
Concept D
Better than A and B, but still not enough protection (from roads, river crossings and future development).
Important to protect upper Hart along with Upper regions of all rivers.
Summary
I think the Final Recommended Plan is the best option. We need to be thinking long-term about development and the role we play in preserving parts of our planet for future generations. We should be looking for alternatives to non-renewable resources.
465. Website Submission at 10:12 PM
Final Recommended Plan
as originally requested by first nations consensus, the 55% should be considerably closer to 100%...
Concept A
this 'divide & conquer'
approach follows a more militaristic, industrial model which has historically proven to be totally inappropriate when attempting to 'coexist' with wilderness...nature is not a mere chattel & any insistence on proceeding with
an over-developed sense of entitlement as mandate & incentive will bear dire consequences.
this has been historically demonstrated socially, environmentally, economically & health-wise enough already...ready, fire...aim
as motto needs some serious reconsideration here...
Concept B
fragmentation for the purpose of control & manipulation is not an option in due consideration of the needs of the next few generations...
we can live without most 'resources' collected from the natural world...air & water are the only 2 exceptions that should receive due consideration re their prime importance...these proposed land use designations are short-sighted & dangerous...
Concept C
this exercise is a typically bureaucratic exercise in bafflegab...no aspects appeal to me other than their potential to serve as printed kindling...
Concept D
as earlier stated...
Summary
the peel planning commission's final recommended plan should be fully accepted as written...anything else, including these proposed revisions is an insult to the obvious & welcome intelligence of the majority of yukoners who have loudly enough spoken & expressed the collective will to see this actualize...do the right thing & serve the public as you were elected to do.
RUWA
this 'new land use designation category'
will undoubtedly result in protection of the dollar value of proposed 'actively managed' land...my suggestion is to honour the will & wishes of the majority of your electorate &accept the unedited peel planning commission's final recommended plan.
LUD
bury them, along with any intentions to revise in any way, the p.p.c.'s (peel planning commission's)
final recommended plan.
on February 24, 2013
466. Website Submission at 12:08 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Accept the Commisons report and stop trying to muddy and change the issues.
Concept A
Accept the Commisions report and the government should stop interfering with the original process
Concept B
apply the principalsas laid out by the Commision and stop trying to change the discussion
Concept C
follow the commisions report
Concept D
follow the commision
Summary
Government should stop messing with things and impliment the Commisions Report
RUWA
The commision did a very good job and made an objective decision based on the needs of all the territory.
I own a small busness in Whitehorse and have investiments in placer mining in the klondike, while I appriciate that mining is an important part of the Yukons ecconomy and history, so are other industries as is the conservation of the environment and I believe that the commision struck a good balance.
With the majority of the Yukon open to minning I believe that there is not a pressing need to develop the area at this time and think that is was wise of the commision to leave the option of development open for the future on a large part of the Peel.
The Yukon Government is way off the mark when it comes to this issue, and should accept the Commisions recomendations and stop medling
LUD
Accept the commisions reports
467. Website Submission at 7:54 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like a number of things about the Final Recommended Plan - the democratic and consultative process that went into it's creation, the limitations on road access and, most of all, the cautious approach. It has been agreed on that no one knows the "true" economic or ecological value of the region (though I disagree with the idea that you can ever put a value on the environment in the first place). In light of this, the cautious approach taken in the Final Recommended Plan is appropriate. To have a process that is consistently re-evaluated allows for flexibility. Allowing mineral, oil and gas exploration "higgledy piggledy" is not an appropriate response to the uncertainty that exists. I fully support the acceptance of the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
Nothing about these designations appeal to me. In fact, the entire thing concerns me. The fact that road access will potentially be allowed in a vast area of the region is of particular concern. Throwing in "wildlife corridors" seems like a token gesture - what value will these corridors have if there are roads and mineral developments crisscrossing the broader region surrounding them? In addition to the ecological and cultural values of the region, it will undermine existing economic value gained from tourism in the region (i.e. by river trips, guided hunting, etc.). As a Yukoner that is worried about having an economy that is entirely reliant on resource extraction, this concerns me.
Concept B
This still does not address my concerns about road access. It is simply unfeasible to maintain the ecological, cultural and economic value of the three rivers by throwing in a wildlife corridor.
Concept C
I like that there is slightly more protection for the Snake River area, but this is still completely insufficient.
Concept D
Again, there is slightly more protection for certain regions, but the concerns previously stated have still not been addressed.
Summary
The government simply cannot accept new land designations that were created behind closed doors. This was supposed to be a process of co-operation and democratic practice. Since October, the government has completely failed in both of these regards. The Yukon First Nations accepted the Final Recommended Plan, despite the fact that it was a compromise. The fact that one First Nation chief describe the YG's announcement of new "guiding principles" as being "stabbed in the back" is not a good sign. The process of land use planning is still in its early stages. If the government is at all concerned with the concept of acting in good faith, it should set precedence for a democratic process and accept the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
No road access - plain and simple. Roads will completely change the area in ways that a majority of Yukoners don't want.
LUD
The process that went into creating the new land designations is one that I cannot support. While the intention may have been to "balance values", it completely undermined years of an open and democratic land use planning process. The fact that neither the Land Use Planning Council nor the affected Yukon First Nation were consulted in the creation of these new designations is a huge warning sign that they should not be accepted. They shouldn't even have been created in the first place. The government cannot dictate this process - it would undermine years of collaboration, trust and good-faith between the government, First Nations and Yukoners.
468. Website Submission at 8:27 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final Recommended plan, because it is the only one that provides full protection of the wilderness.
469. Website Submission at 9:16 AM
Final Recommended Plan
What concerns me it the plan itself & the process that YTG is attempting to circumvent to push this forward. What appeals to me is protecting one of the worlds largest pristine areas. Not opening it up to development and fuelling a boom & bust economy. Fort Mac was smalls quiet community prior to oil, i do not want Yukon to follow in it's foot steps. Honour & follow the original plan: http://www.peel.planyukon.ca
470. Website Submission at 10:09 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Ecological and conservation values must be the basis on which decisions are made, i.e.
permanent protection for this globally significant area.
Concept A
It concerns me that my government is green washing their real intentions re: the Peel, i.e. widespread development and destruction of this pristine watershed.
Concept B
Stick with the original Peel commission plan - the result of nearly 8 years of consultation.
Concept C
Stick with the original Peel commission plan - the result of nearly 8 years of consultation.
Concept D
Stick with the original Peel commission plan - the result of nearly 8 years of consultation.
Summary
Respect the democratic process that resulted in a fair plan - the original Peel Commission Plan.
RUWA
What values are you protecting? Preservation of this invaluable wild area is incompatible with the corporate interests the Yukon party government espouses. Our economy is fine. We can and must preserve this unique and irreplaceable water shed.
LUD
As many people, both Aboriginal and non-native have
pointed out, this incredibly valuable area (valuable in and of itself) deserves 100% protection. Lets see that category.
471. Website Submission at 10:15 AM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan appeals to me because it is a compromise of protected and non protected areas reached by multiple stakeholders.
Concept A
does not do enough to protect non resource development interests
Concept B
does not do enough to protect renewable resource interests
Concept C
does not do enough to protect renewable resource interests
Concept D
does not really protect anything other than mineral interests
Summary
80% of the Yukon is open to free entry staking and available for resource development. We all need a certain level of resource development for economic activity. We also need to plan for the future and keep some money in the bank, in this case the ecological bank. We need to protect some land for future generations. Accept the Final Recommended Plan as put forward by the Peel River Planning Commission.
RUWA
Use the original land use management plan as prepared by the planning commission. Restricted use does not ensure any protection.
LUD
As above.
472. Website Submission at 11:44 AM
Final Recommended Plan
|there should be less protection of large areas. All applications for land use should be treated as they are in the rest of the Yukon.
Concept B
Do not support 80/20. To much protected area.
Summary
Yukon issues should only be open to residents of the Yukon. NWT communities should have no input on this matter whatsoever. Perhaps a mortatorium should be put on the the peel land use plan. Because envormentalists are calling for protection , does not obligate gov't to respond.
RUWA
I do not suppport the 80/20 that has been proposed by the planning commision. Each land use application should be looked at on an individual basis.
473. Website Submission at 11:51 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I thinks its biased in favour of the wilderness tourism operators who want to use the region as their own private park.
Eliminating the possibility of any future responsible development is extremely short sighted.
Concept A
Good balance of protection and future land use.
Concept B
Good balance.
Concept C
Good balance of protection and land use.
Concept D
Good balance of protection and land use.
Summary
I find it troubling a shrill minority is using fear and misinformation to control the agenda.
Everyone agrees on protection for the peel.
But closing off the entire area forever is extremely short sighted.
We need economic development in the Territory.
I hope the other side of this debate gets more facts out as the extremism of the conservationists is scary.
RUWA
Great plan!
LUD
I think its a great plan...well balanced and responsible.
474. Website Submission at 12:22 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The WA and SMA restricts too much land under permanent and interim withdrawl from new land use and new surface access.
Concept A
RUWA - clearly define what new land uses and surface access MAY occur and what the management RULES are/will be. WHO will manage? Gov't depts only or in conjunction with consulation with present land use stakeholders? Will permitting be similar to YESAB or a whole new process? Needs to be CLEAR. This map is the best use of the land out of the 5 maps presented.
Concept B
Concept A is best.
Concept C
Concept A is best.
Concept D
Concept A is best.
RUWA
RUWA needs to clearly define what new land uses and surface access MAY occur and the permitting process must not be onerous, but simple and direct.
475. Website Submission at 12:30 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I DO NOT support the final recommended plan. It does not support a balanced approach. The Yukon is historically a mining territory, which will provide opportunities and prosperity for Yukoners in the future.
Concept A
Some sort of moderate protection of the river corridors, while still allowing crossing, would be an appropriate amount of protection for the Peel area.
Summary
First Nations should have control over the 2.7% of the area that is theirs. Chances are, little of this area will be developed in the near future due to its inaccessibiltiy. We have spent too much time on this land use planning area. Its time to get it done and move on. I think most people are tired of hearing about it and would like the government that was elected on this issue, to make a decision and move forward.
RUWA
IMA seems like an appropriate amount of protection to be applied to most of the region. RUWA limiting surface disturbance should be raised from 0.2% to at least 5%. Other than providing a greater degree of protection around the river corridors, which can be provided by applying RUWA, I don't believe any areas in the Peel need to be designated as PA. Tombstone Park is already a PA and that is enough.
476. Website Submission at 1:12 PM
RUWA
Make the Peel a park like Kluane, with the same rules limiting access.
477. Website Submission at 1:51 PM
Final Recommended Plan
As we all know, The Final Recommended plan was painstakingly accomplished over several years of public consultation and takes into accounts all sides of this situation. Although I would hate to see the Dempster highway becoming another mining road, filled with noisy ore trucks, I do prefer this idea to the alternative of building more roads to access the minerals/oil and gas found in the most pristine and untouched parts of our territory. This Plan is the most balanced option we have, and is the fairest to all concerned. I would certainly like to see it followed.
Concept A
The proposed land use designations applied in these maps are misleading, and that concerns me. I am concerned that none of these designations provide true, long-term protection, while all of them allow for the possibility of disturbance through oil, gas and/or mineral development. None of these maps provide the true protection this area needs, and all of them allow for far too much development to take place. I much prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept B
The proposed land use designations applied in these maps are misleading, and that concerns me. I am concerned that none of these designations provide true, long-term protection, while all of them allow for the possibility of disturbance through oil, gas and/or mineral development. None of these maps provide the true protection this area needs, and all of them allow for far too much development to take place. I much prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
The proposed land use designations applied in these maps are misleading, and that concerns me. I am concerned that none of these designations provide true, long-term protection, while all of them allow for the possibility of disturbance through oil, gas and/or mineral development. None of these maps provide the true protection this area needs, and all of them allow for far too much development to take place. I much prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
The proposed land use designations applied in these maps are misleading, and that concerns me. I am concerned that none of these designations provide true, long-term protection, while all of them allow for the possibility of disturbance through oil, gas and/or mineral development. None of these maps provide the true protection this area needs, and all of them allow for far too much development to take place. I much prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
Please be fair and follow the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I think it is misleading to insinuate that "all land uses", including, presumably, mining development, can take place while protecting the "values" in an area. What is even meant by "values", in this context? If an area is being "used", can it be considered wilderness? To me, wilderness is defined by a lack of human presence, a lack of surface access such as roads and river crossings, and certainly a lack of "land and resource use". This designation has a very misleading name. As I feel this "goal" is an oxymoron, I have no suggestions as to how it can be achieved.
LUD
These proposed land use designations have misleading names. The RUWA designations should not contain the word "wilderness", as they allow surface access, disturbance, and certain levels of noise--none of which are features of a true wilderness. Even a "Protected Area", coloured a reassuring green, is only "similar" to the Special Management Area designation from the Final Recommended Plan--and the similarities and difference are not explained. Please simply follow the land use designations proposed by the Final Recommended Plan.
478. Website Submission at 1:55 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am very concerned that there is no broad based consensus on the YG proposals - I believe YG should accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission recommendations and report for the next 5 years while you build better understandings of our current and evolving socio-economic realities and future prospects. Please act as stewards for our future generations - I do not believe we need to develop the resources in the Peel Watershed now or in the near future. It is a valuable wilderness resource - one of few remaining in the Yukon and in the world. Let's preserve that for our children and theirs in the future. Let's really plan what we need and not be quick to make as much money as we can now at the expense of health and future prospects. Please implement comprehensive socio-economic planning before going ahead with any developments in that region. I think the Peel Watershed Planning Commission did a great job of gathering information and perspectives - let's implement that plan for the next 5 years - then see what should be done next.
Concept A
My concern is that Firts Natiosn and many other people are not in agreement with YG proposals to alter the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Report. The Commission considered many options - please implement that plan as it is the best representation of consensus at present. There is no need to rush into development there that can never be turned back.
Concept B
What concerns me is these proposals do not implement the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Report...please do that first.
Concept D
Please implement the Peel Watershed Planning Commission Report recommendations - they represent the best consensus at present time.
Summary
As mentioned above - please institute concerted comprehensive socio-economic planning with a public participation component similar to Yukon 2000 to build consensus among Yukon people.
RUWA
Yes - I think the YG should pause and delay any final decisions while more discussions proceed to build better consensus. I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission work and report because it represents widespread consensus among affected aboriginal people and non aboriginal people concerned about the long term ecological health of the region. I believe we should delay any further development other than eco-tourism projects - preserving the wilderness character and values for the long term. Maybe some day we will need to develop other resources - I do not believe the case has been made that such exploitation is critical to do now or in the next few years.
LUD
Please accept the Peel Watershed Planning Commission recommendations in their entirety for the short term (5 years). Place a moratorium on development while more research and experience with the region proceeds. Please institute a serious concerted broad based consensus building socio-economic planning project for all Yukoners to participate in - we need an update to the 60s Carr Report and something that emulates the 80s Yukon 2000 public consultations. I do not believe we understand our economy or society at present, hence it is difficult to build consensus. We have worked hard to settle land claims and build trust in recent decades between aboriginal and majority groups - making a forced decision on the Peek watershed that does not respect the stated opinions and concerns of First Nations would be a backward step. Please take the time necessary and show the leadership required to advance our understanding as a whole Yukon community for our future prospects.
479. Website Submission at 2:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
Concept A
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
Concept B
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
Concept C
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
Concept D
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
Summary
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
RUWA
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
LUD
Quite simply and emphatically; Government of Yukon should follow the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan to a "T" and quit trying to modify it in favour of their friends in Industry. Our Yukon Government has a responsibility to all Yukoners. Their attempts to serve the interests of a moneyed minority are disgraceful. I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan absolutely and wish to see it adopted immediately.
480. Website Submission at 2:47 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I only support the Final Recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept A
I only support the Final Recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept B
I only support the final reccomendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept C
I only support the Final reccommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept D
I only support the final recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
Summary
I only support the Final Reccomendations of the Peel Planning Commmision.
RUWA
I support the Peel Planning Commissions Final Recommendations.
LUD
The only plan I support is the Final Recommendations of the Peel Planning Commission.
481. Website Submission at 3:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Final Recommended Plan is strong because of its 6 years of consultation and careful deliberation. I would actually like to see 100% protected and a move to more sustainable energy. The Recommended plan is ALREADY a compromise.
Concept A
Is there anywhere that's actually protected? ie. no roads or anything?
Concept B
Same thing. Is anywhere even really protected? I'd really like to have a living planet to pass on to future generations. We have to figure out how to live differently, not just keep developing and developing.
Concept C
Hmm, ya. I really like the Final Recommended Plan the best.
Concept D
Why are there all these other concepts when there's already a final recommended plan?
Summary
Please follow the Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. Respecting Umbrella Final Agreements is a really good way to, you know, not do illegal stuff. Thanks for consulting! Please follow the Commission's Final Recommended Plan, thanks!
RUWA
What about just following the Commission's final recommended plan? I think these new proposals are way too much of a compromise.
LUD
Ya! How about following the ones from the Commission's final recommended plan, instead? That makes way more sense than making up new land use designations to make room for more development.
482. Website Submission at 4:26 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Concept B
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
I support the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
483. Website Submission at 5:15 PM
Final Recommended Plan
All of it concerns me, as you cannot divide watersheds and ecosystems in such arbitrary fashion, and expect them not to affect each other. Furthermore, it concerns me that your "Protected Areas" or "Restricted Use Wilderness Areas" allow for roads and the development of existing mineral claims (staked without FN consent?). Again, do not claim to be representing "First Nations Values" when NONE of the affected First Nations accept YTG's Plan. The Peel Commission’s Final Recommended Plan however, was produced under the public process mandated by the Umbrella Final Agreement, and is accepted by the affected First Nations. That is the definition of legitimacy, not Yukon party's plan.
RUWA
It seems like you are trying to pass your RUMA areas off as environmental protection. Your requirements on activities seems very inadequate, especially since the Commission's recommended plan would actually protect much more of the area. You also allow for the development of roads and existing mineral claims in the "Restricted Use Wilderness Areas," which would have very harmful effects on the Peel watershed. Therefore, your maps are very misleading. You should clearly include that road and mineral development are permitted in your green areas. But really, I suggest that you do not allow for roads or existing mineral claims to be built in RUMA areas.
LUD
I will only support the Peel Land Use Planning Commission's recommended plan that protects 80% of the area in question. What Yukon Party is planning on doing is absolutely illegitimate, as it violates what is supposed to be nation to nation governance between First Nations and the territory. Yukoners accept the Commission's recommended plan, as do First Nations. Changing this is tyrannical use of your "majority" and it is putting the interests of mining companies before those of Yukoners and First Nations. YTG claims this will actually benefit Yukoners and First Nations, but this is a convenient assumption on their part about what it is Yukoners and First Nations want, and putting words in the mouth of others is absolutely not the definition of democratic governance. In one move, you are destroying trust between these groups and the potential for a lasting, cooperative relationship. It is arrogant, and not going unnoticed. I urge you to act responsibly and democratically and accept the Commission's recommended plan that is a public process mandated by the Umbrella Final Agreement, which YTG signed and has a duty to uphold.
484. Website Submission at 6:17 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
Concept A
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
Concept B
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
Concept C
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
Concept D
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
Summary
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
RUWA
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
LUD
The Commission's work is what should be implemented. Do a survey on it.
485. Website Submission at 6:53 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This is the only acceptable concept for the amount of wilderness protection the area deserves.
Concept A
Does not offer adequate protection of the wilderness from mining development.
Concept B
Does not offer adequate protection of the wilderness areas from mining development.
Concept C
Does not offer adequate protection of the wilderness areas from mining development.
Concept D
Does not offer adequate protection of wilderness areas from mining development
Summary
Accept the Final recommended plan. If you do not, you have betrayed the UFA and first nations will never forgive tis.
RUWA
Go back to the final recommended plan and use the wilderness area designation. The Ruwa term was designed in some back room by unknown buracrats, without any public input. There was seven years of public dialog & consultation in the final recommended plan.
LUD
Accept the Peel Planning commissions Final Recommended plan as is, including the original land use designations. The final recommended Land Peel Watershed Plan has moral standing with the majority of the Yukon public and all Yukon Forst Nations.
486. Website Submission at 6:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the final recommended plan as developed by the Planning Commission.
Protection of the Peel Watershed is an appropriate land use. We have enough other land available for our mineral industry to satisfy our needs. Moreover, the mineral industry is highly unlikely to be viable in the remote Peel region.
Mineral development in this region is highly speculative and does not add to real wealth creation. in contrast its effects, such as those created by the development of access routes, will result in real and material degradation of the region.
accept the final plan to preserve this region for future generation of Yukoners and Canadians.
Concept A
I disagree with any post commission modification such as these for concept A and the other concepts.
Yukon Government had the opportunity to help shape the planning outcome during the process. Making these modification now is not appropriate. Yukon Government should learn from this process and move on.
Concept B
I disagree with any post commission modification such as these for concept A and the other concepts.
Yukon Government had the opportunity to help shape the planning outcome during the process. Making these modification now is not appropriate. Yukon Government should learn from this planning process and move on.
Concept C
I disagree with any post commission modification such as these for concept A and the other concepts.
Yukon Government had the opportunity to help shape the planning outcome during the process. Making these modification now is not appropriate. Yukon Government should learn from this planning process and move on.
Concept D
I disagree with any post commission modification such as these for concept A and the other concepts.
Yukon Government had the opportunity to help shape the planning outcome during the process. Making these modification now is not appropriate. Yukon Government should learn from this planning process and move on.
RUWA
The RUWA designation is not a workable concept. Yukon Government has already shown an inability to manage other regulatory instruments that bind development and use of lands (i.e. lack of enforcement of water use licenses).
This new designation would not be a workable instrument to actively manage lands, it would simply be a tool to aid development not to balance development.
As we all know a hybrid design is one that does not meet any design requirement or purpose very well. The RUWA land designation is such a hybrid and is doomed to not perform very well from any prospective.
LUD
I suppose the planning work of the Peel commission, unchanged by Yukon Government's intervention into the process.
Preservation of the Peel in its undeveloped state is the appropriate way forward for this land area. There is enough other land in Yukon to satisfy our local needs for a sustainable mineral industry without further development of the Peel.
Yukon Government should respect the process that was completed, learn from their lack of involvement and apply that to future land use planning commissions.
487. Website Submission at 7:21 PM
Concept B
Respect the decision of the original Peel Commission. Respect the people and what they said.
Summary
The people have already spoken. Respect that! Respect that decision! The land must be preserved for all time and the generations to come.
RUWA
Respect the findings of the Peel Watershed Commission!
LUD
500 years from now the Global value of this land as a preserved functioning wilderness ecosystem will be priceless. Have the will to do the right thing now!
488. Website Submission at 7:33 PM
Summary
I fully support the plan of the Peel Planning Commission, with NO CHANGES.
RUWA
I fully support the plan of the Peel Planning Commission--no changes. They got it right!
489. Website Submission at 7:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final
Recommended Plan.
Let's be a good example for Yukon,Canada,North America, and the world.
Let's preserve this area in as pristine condition as we found it.
490. Website Submission at 7:38 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The long history of consultation with all stakeholders and consensus style development of the Final Recommended Plan appeal to me a great deal. The people involved heard all those that were concerned with the region, looked at all the scientific data, and created a sound plan that protects values and allows for some changes in the future.
Concept A
The tiny Protected Areas concern me a great deal. The RUWA designation doesn't cut it over most of this region.
Concept B
Protected Areas still far too small.
Concept C
The Wind and Bonnet Plume are unprotected outside the RUWA corridor, which isn't real protection anyway.
Concept D
Not enough protection in the Wind and Bonnet Plume drainages.
Summary
Even though I would prefer total protection for the entire watershed, I endorse the Final Recommended Plan, since it represents a conscious effort to plan according to the wishes of the people who live in the region, protecting most of the watershed, while allowing for some key developments to occur.
491. Website Submission at 7:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The zone definitions are great. However, I'm concerned about the tourism activity up all the river valleys, as well as significant outfitting concessions. As previously noted, I feel the plan is missing policies on human activity outside of mineral exploration and extraction, such as tourism, hunting and fishing which can significantly affect ecosystems and wildlife.
Concept A
Very limited protection of sensitive river valleys and drainage basins is concerning, as well no expansion of Tombstone.
Concept B
Very limited protection of the drainage basins still concern me, however the expansion of the PA zone around Tombstone is a great idea.
Concept C
PA Protection of the Snake River is an absolute necessity.
Concept D
The addition of protection of the Hart River is welcome, however I do not like how the Snake River loses PA protection of its central corridor.
Summary
Definitely increased focus on activity outside of mineral exploration, as the debate seems to have been polarize to pro/anti-mining and there's far more factors at play.
RUWA
It could include policies on human activity outside of mineral exploration and extraction, as well as wildlife management, for example restrictions on disturbing the Porcupine Caribou Herd. Also, analysis of the effects of otherwise open-access to the regions outside of land use, for example by tour and hunting guides, that could have significant impact if left to an honor system.
LUD
I would like to see access restrictions so that individuals operating in the area, for whatever purpose be it mineral exploration or recreation, Limiting access to registered guides and/or permitted individuals would provide for this. Allowing open-access makes it hard to enforce many policies, as you couldn't control who is operating in the region under what pretenses.
492. Website Submission at 7:54 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the final recommended plan because it was a real consultation with thousands of man hours put into it. This is what the people want, this is what the people should get. Stick to the plan.
thank you.
Concept A
no, stick to the original plan.
Concept B
no, stick to the original plan
Concept C
no, stick to the original plan
Concept D
no, stick to the original plan
Summary
Let's have a referendum.
493. Website Submission at 7:57 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Yukon government's new plan is confussing and you should at least follow the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission to protect 80% of it. In my opinion it should be protected 100%.
Concept A
I want the Peel Watershed to be protected 100%
Concept B
Protect the Peel. Do not allow mining in this area. It should be left for yukoners and the world to enjoy.
Concept C
It is not enough. I want to see at least 80% of the Peel protected.
Concept D
Mining companies have a history of leavin a mess behind and it is the tax payers who have to clen it up after the mining companies leave their pockets full of dollars, but they don't care if they have polluted the rivers, if the soil has been contaminated because of all the quemicals they use or if the habitat of other sentient beings has been destroyed... They only care about profits.
Summary
Protect the Peel... PLEASE!
RUWA
I suggest that you protect the Peel Watershade region 100%. Based on my experience mining companies don't care at all about the environment nor about Nature. They go to mine out the minerals, make a profit, leave a mess behind (destroying the soil, polluting the water and earth, killing wildlife, they even leave the machinary and equipment that is not useful anymore) and is the tax payers that have to pay to clean up their mess, so honestly I don't see any benefit of allowing mining and other industrial activities in the Peel, so please protect it 100%!
LUD
Promote the Peel Watershed as a ecoturism destination, where people can enjoy the beauty and magic of this pristine area and where lots of fun and interesting activities can be done like hikn,canoeing, wildlife watching and so on. Please protect the Peel, show us that you care about our children's future by not allowing minig companies to destroy and pollute our natural resources.
494. Website Submission at 8:20 PM
Summary
I have already been consulted and gave my opinion and we already have a fair and balanced plan! I strongly support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. It is the only legitimate plan for this significant wilderness area. I would like to see true protection (as in no roads or new development) of 80% of the watershed.
495. Website Submission at 8:27 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I'm rather annoyed by the fact that you have opened the Peel Watershed Planning process again, thereby disregarding and disrespecting the complete and democratic consultation work done by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
The Final Recommended Land Use Plan submitted by the Commission should not be amended. Period. It would be an insult to all the people that diligently and honestly gave their views during the original consultations.
Just because you don't like the result, you can't just turn around and start over. Well, I guess you can, being "the government" and all. If you change the plan, I promise you, you won't be "the government" for long.
RUWA
I'm rather annoyed by the fact that you have opened the Peel Watershed Planning process again, thereby disregarding and disrespecting the complete and democratic consultation work done by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
The Final Recommended Land Use Plan submitted by the Commission should not be amended. Period. It would be an insult to all the people that diligently and honestly gave their views during the original consultations.
Just because you don't like the result, you can't just turn around and start over. Well, I guess you can, being "the government" and all. If you change the plan, I promise you, you won't be "the government" for long.
496. Website Submission at 8:40 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Although my preference is that 100% of the region be protected completely from resource development, I recognize that some compromise is necessary. I am supportive therefore of Final Recommended Plan. Having had the great good fortune to spend a couple of weeks on the Wind River and the Peel River, I cannot support any development in those areas. sure, if we had a shortage of minerals and this was our last resort, maybe we would have to consider development there. But we don't have a shortage of minerals and I cannot accept any plan that prioritizes resource development and all of the necessary infrastructure over leaving this area as the absolutely incredible pristine wilderness that it is. The SMA designation maintains that pristine wilderness. The plan has built in flexibility as it calls for review of certain of the areas in 5 years. The fact that so many groups and individuals have supported and accepted this final recommended plan indicates that it has struck a decent balance.
Concept A
RUWA and RUWA Corridor is sadly insufficient protection. The corridor is not the only area that people who enjoy the river access. Many many of us hike well beyond the corridor, often for days. The ecological and conservation values you have identified (Not sure how those are identified), the First Nation values, and the tourism and recreation values all show interests well beyond the corridor. It is simply insufficient protection for such a magnificent part of the world.
Concept B
Have not seen what 'managed' means. Please define. Do not have confidence that areas will be managed in a way that respects any values other than resource development.
Concept C
Good that the Snake RIver area is protected, but still not enough. see previous comments.
Concept D
All of the Snake, Wind, Bonnet Plume and as much of the Hart as possible, should be protected. This is not enough protection.
497. Website Submission at 8:47 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Surprisingly, this doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Although zones 8 and 9 are a bit large, this plan is right to want to protect them.
Concept A
Seems to be protecting all the wrong areas
Concept B
I like the idea of expanding Tombstone
Concept D
This one is my favorite. Good comprimise
RUWA
It seems to me that these proposed new designations should already be in place throughout the Yukon; they are simply common sense.
LUD
I don't believe in limiting access to an area. What's the point in protecting an area if no one can visit it?
498. Website Submission at 8:51 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the Final Recommended Plan. It appeals to me because it helps to protect the wilderness character of this area.
Concept A
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept B
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
I prefer the Final Recommended Plan.
499. Website Submission at 8:51 PM
Summary
I support the Peel commission’s final recommended plan. I reject the Yukon government’s “concept” plans and I feel that by tabling these competing Peel plans, the Yukon government has betrayed the public’s trust by dismissing the final recommended plan which resulted from the rigorous Peel commission process which the parties entered into in good faith.
By effectively discarding the Peel commission’s final recommended plan, I believe that the Yukon government is cultivating future conflict in the territory over land use and development, and casting doubt and uncertainty over the spirit and intent of the land claims in the territory, and the collaborative set out in them. Future land use planning processes in other areas will surely suffer from the cynicism which the public and First Nations will take away from the Peel process. This single issue has served to further polarize society in the Yukon, rather than to seek a reasoned, balanced middle-ground where Yukoners can intelligently weigh land use options. It is irresponsible of the Yukon government to cultivate this type of polarization in our territory, and I believe it will ultimately lead to greater uncertainty for potential investors in the territory by provoking antagonism with First Nations and effectively discarding the trust and good will of all land use players in the territory. In this sense, the Yukon government may “win the battle” for the Peel, but may ultimately “lose the war” for creating a stable economy by poisoning relationships with First Nations, the public, and other land use players to the point of making future land use issues so divisive and ripe with conflict that would-be investors will be reluctant to invest in the Yukon. The government’s stance on the Peel is thus tragically short-sighted.
Lastly, the Peel process has exemplified bad governance on the part of the Yukon government. The government is not playing the role of a balanced arbiter acting in the best interests of society and of Yukoners. Rather, the government seems to be advocating solely for the interests of a single, powerful interest group (i.e. the mining industry). This is not reasoned, balanced decision-making for the benefit of all Yukoners.
500. Website Submission at 8:56 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I believe the final recommended plan developed by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is a plan that offers advantages to all stakeholders that have vested interests in the land. This plan took seven years to produce and focuses on sustainable development of the watershed. I like that the plan recommends protecting 80% of the watershed, and 25% for the interim to be reviewed every 5 to 10 years. I don't see the need to open this area up to development all at once? I believe we should keep the majority of this watershed untouched for the use of future generations.
Concept A
My concern with Concept A, is that 87% of the land mass would be open to development. I am also concerned that all concepts were developed by only four members of the Yukon Government. There was no transparency in the development of these new concepts and I see no science behind them.
Concept B
My concern with Concept B, is that 80% of the land mass would be open to development. Again, I feel there was no transparency in the development process. There is no information on this website to explain how these concepts were developed or why certain land use designations were selected.
Concept C
My concern with Concept B, is that 67% of the land mass would be open to development.
Concept D
My concern with Concept B, is that 63% of the land mass would be open to development.
501. Website Submission at 9:09 PM
Summary
I have reviewed the Final Recommended Plan and Concepts A-D. I am one of the Yukoners who wants to serve s a responsible steward of this pristine piece of the world. I would like to see the government stick with the Final Recommended Plan at all costs.
502. Website Submission at 9:13 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I appreciate the work and consultation that took place to develop this plan and agree with its recommendations. The only aspect that concerns me is the lack of democratic process now in play by the Government. Accept the plan and then work on dialogue and openness going forward.
Summary
Please respect the final plan and move forward in a positive and respectful way. Thank you.
LUD
keep the original final land use plan as completed by the Peel Watershed Land Use Planning Council.
503. Website Submission at 9:19 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept A
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept B
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept C
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Concept D
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
Summary
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
RUWA
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
LUD
I support the Final Recommended Plan, as recommended by the Land Use Planning Commission.
504. Website Submission at 9:25 PM
Concept A
To me, this is the best one. I like the idea if active management, not permanent withdrawals.
Summary
First Nations should not be using the LUP process to increase their sovereignty on Yukon public lands. It is absolutely ridiculous how anti government the FN governments have become with these processes. A few FN people in remote communities shouldn't dictate our future. This is democracy. The territory is becoming more urban, more multicultural. Its time for the FN people to stop pretending its 400 years ago. We need a healthy, real economy for the future. They do not live on the land any longer. Complete protection is silly, ridiculous, and unethical. We need plans that are flexible so we can be adaptable for the future. Creating another Park is not the reasonable solution to our future needs. I'm tired of the conservation groups and FNs saying that the government had been undemocratic and are violating the UFA. Thats a bunch of garbage. Respecting the UFA doesn't mean giving into every single FN demand. Respecting the UFA means drawing lines, saying NO to the FN rhetoric, and upholding the rights and laws of the ready of us Yukoners. I hope this government has the guts to stand up for Yukoners and not give in to the demands of conservation groups and FNs.
RUWA
I think the government is doing a excellent job with the new designations. On as more broad level, I find the whole process kind of ridiculous. We should not be letting organizations like Yukon Conservation Society or CPAWS control the future of the Yukon. Also, I am outraged by the collective First Nation opposition to any proposed LUP. Land claims were settled some 15 years ago. The LUP process should not be used by FN governments to gain more sovereignty on Yukon public lands. Especially considering the obvious hypocritical agendas by FN governments. The aren't interested in conservation for conservation sake. They are merely anti-government on all fronts. The 200 people in Fort MacPherson should not be dictating the future economics of Yukon. Besides, its a bunch of rhetoric when they talk about all those mythical values they say about the land. They don't use the land any more or less than the average Yukon recreational outdoorsman. They drive up and down the Dempster hunting caribou. Honestly, I think the whole LUP process has been hijacked by overpaid white consultants, lawyers and well finances conservation groups who are stirring up the FN's to take an anti YG stance. To me, I think the current regulatory processes of YG and YESSA do ASN adequate job and we do not need regional LUP for more conservation.
505. Website Submission at 9:39 PM
Final Recommended Plan
A report written by Access Consulting Group called “Roads to Resources” documented potential access roads into the Peel River Watershed. One possibility was to upgrade the Wind River Trail into an all-season access road. The upgrade of the Wind River Trail into an all-season access road would have significant consequences on wildlife, water quality and wilderness character. The current location of the Wind River Trail parallels the Wind River. This trail is located in the valley bottom where travel is easiest. Consequently, the valley bottom is also where animal density is highest. Animals, as well as humans, prefer to travel along the path of least resistance. With the upgrade of the Wind River Trail into an all season access road, the amount of motorized traffic will significantly increase disturbance to many species of wildlife. For example, an upgrade of the Wind River Trail will allow hunters access to areas where they previously did not have access. This increase in access will put more hunting pressure on sheep, moose and caribou and will surely have an impact on their population in the region.
As shown on the map provided by the Final Recommended Plan, the range of the Hart River Caribou Herd is limited mostly to LMU 8. This land management unit is the area the Wind River Trail will penetrate. Once the Wind River Trail is established, it will create the foundation for many access trails to build off of. Many scientific reports document the sensitivity of caribou to road access, and surely the Hart River herd is no different. I am concerned that industrial development (notably road access) will have a serious and irreversible impact on that herd.
Another concern I have with the four concepts put forth by the Yukon Government is the lack of protection of the major rivers and their corridors. The rivers in the Peel region are the lifeline of the area. They support the people, the wildlife, and the fish. The rivers in the Peel watershed are the headwaters for the Peel River, a river which the community of Fort McPherson is dependent on. By allowing development of roads and bridges across these waterways and their tributaries, you risk losing the integrity of these rivers, and hence the integrity of the people and wildlife that depend on these rivers.
I am in full support of the Final Recommended Plan put forth by the Peel Planning Commission. This report was a seven year collaboration between the government, industry, First Nations and the public. It was a land use plan that all parties compromised on. It was a plan that involved scientific research. It was an attempt to objectively look at all aspects of the region, including resource development, conservation, First Nation interests, and other economic interests, and find a balance that everyone could be happy with. The report provided detailed maps with the most up-to-date information on economic development potential and interests (renewable and non-renewable), ecologically important areas, First Nation land use and heritage and cultural resources. There was a detailed rationale for designation of each land management unit. There were explanations for all decisions made in the report. There was transparency. The four concepts put forth by the Yukon Government do not provide a rationale for their designations of land management units. There is very little information provided as to why the government made the decisions that they did. There is no transparency. Furthermore, the Final Recommended Plan provides recommendations as to how they intend to limit the cumulative impacts of development in the area. The Yukon Government provides no recommendations to limit the potential for cumulative impacts in the region.
506. Website Submission at 9:48 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I am concerned with the fact that the Final Recommended Plan Land Use does not reflect what was gathered and recommended by the Land Use Committee after years of work. The current plan represents an agenda that is not based on a consultative process that has allowed all the voices of all parties concerned to be heard.
This plan has not been developed in consultation with the First Nations Governments whose traditional territories this area lies within.
LUD
I feel that these proposed land use designations are a complete break with public trust and consultation. There was a number of consultations already done, years of work by a group of people representing a number of user groups. This group produced a recommended plan outlining how this unique area should be used and then this report and its recommendations was completely dismissed. I believe that the government that was elected to represent all the people in the Yukon, needs to go back to these recommendations and move forward with that.
507. Website Submission at 9:53 PM
Final Recommended Plan
My concern is that the government has opened up more area to development than was recommended by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. I support protection with no roads and no new development in 80% of the Peel Watershed. The plan now proposed in the Yukon Government's Final Recommended Plan does not appeal to me, the only parts that appeal to me are the 100% protected areas from development and roads.
Concept A
The PA protected areas appeal to me, but the fact that development is still allowed in this area under existing claims does not appeal to me. I do not want mining development in protected areas and I would like to have 80% of the watershed protected from development and roads as recommended by the Peel Planning Commission.
Concept B
There is too much RUWA, this area should be greatly decreased to 20% of the entire watershed, reflecting the Peel Planning Commission's recommended plan with 80% no roads and no development. RUWA does allow development and this does not appeal to me.
Concept C
There is more PA area in this plan, but there is still too much RUWA in the plan. I support 80% protection of the watershed with no roads and no development. Decrease the RUWA and replace with protected areas that include no roads and no development.
Concept D
RUWA is decreased, but it is still too large. I support protection with no roads and no development in 80% of the Peel Watershed as per the Peel Planning Commissions Final Recommended plan, this does not reflect their plan and thus does not appeal to me.
Summary
Please recognize that Yukoners have spoken and they would like their government to respect the Planning Commissions process. I am not what I would consider an environmentalist, I do support mining, but I want responsible mining and I want areas to be protected for future generations. I do not believe that our mining regulations will adequately protect the area, and thus I do not believe that the RUWA designation will protect parts of the Peel. I support having the 80% no roads and no development protection with limited mining in other parts as proposed by the Planning Commission. I believe this to be fair to all parties involved and it reflects my wishes. Thank you for respecting the publics voices.
RUWA
I do not wish for active management of the land use. I would like the watershed to be fully protected from roads and development in 80% of the watershed. Temporary access, including river crossing should NOT be allowed, not even under specific conditions. There should be no new land uses and surface access in RUWA areas. There should be no sub zones and no development allowed. The government should maintain the 80% protected area with no roads and no new development as was recommended by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
LUD
I attended the Peel Planning Commissions workshops and planning process. I supported this process and I would like the government to maintain the true protection with no roads or no new development in 80% of the watershed. I believe you should modify your proposed land use designations to match those recommended by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
508. Website Submission at 10:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Umbrella
Final
Agreement..............should be 100% protected and made into a park...........concerns me that money is more powerful then the environment concerns.
Concept A
Umbrella
Final
Agreement
Concept B
Umbrella
Final
Agreement
Concept C
Umbrella
Final
Agreement
Concept D
Umbrella
Final
Agreement
Summary
By making the whole area a park true respect for this vast distant Land will be protected for all that care to truly respect the Land.
RUWA
Make the Peel a park....no mining,no hunting no additional roads etc....
LUD
Umbrella
Final
Agreement
509. Website Submission at 10:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The large amount of protected land appeals to me. The only aspect of the Final Recommended Plan that concerns me is that the Government is not interested in adopting it.
Concept A
There is not enough protected land. Adopt the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept B
There is not enough protected land. Adopt the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
There is not enough protected land. Adopt the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
There is not enough protected land. Adopt the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
Please adopt the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
The use of the word "values" in this context is unclear and highly subjective. In my opinion, the best way to protect the "values" of any area of the Peel Watershed is for the Government to adopt the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
Any suggestions I could possibly have are clearly spelled out by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. Please adopt it.
510. Website Submission at 10:01 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I wish to support Final Recommended Peel Plan in its entirety not government attempts to weaken or destroy it. The Final Recommended Peel Plan is the only legitimate ption for a whole host of reasons.
Concept A
I wish to support Final Recommended Peel Plan in its entirety not government attempts to weaken or destroy it. The Final Recommended Peel Plan is the only legitimate ption for a whole host of reasons.
Concept B
I wish to support Final Recommended Peel Plan in its entirety not government attempts to weaken or destroy it. The Final Recommended Peel Plan is the only legitimate ption for a whole host of reasons.
Concept C
I wish to support Final Recommended Peel Plan in its entirety not government attempts to weaken or destroy it. The Final Recommended Peel Plan is the only legitimate ption for a whole host of reasons.
Concept D
I wish to support Final Recommended Peel Plan in its entirety not government attempts to weaken or destroy it. The Final Recommended Peel Plan is the only legitimate ption for a whole host of reasons.
511. Website Submission at 10:11 PM
Final Recommended Plan
The lower IMA Zones more appeal to me. And that the IMA 3 are close to the Dempster Hwy, which decreases impact on the protected areas.
Concerns: The IMA IV are dotted between protected areas which could lead into leaching of the land of those protected areas if not actively managed/overseen.
Concept A
Not enough protected areas
To many IMA zones III but it does decrease the zones IV.
But if we are going to ruin this area, lets make it concentrated not spread over the whole place.
Concept B
Not a Supporter
Concept C
Appeals- that all of region 9 is protected. First nations settlement lands are on the boundries of zone, so those areas can be monitored more closely.
Concerns- region 6 is not protected. IMA zone IV has oil and gas, and that could lead to Fracking, and Facking should NOT NOT NOT be done in the Yukon, or anywhere.
Concept D
Concerns region 9 isn't fully protected, which contains eco and conservation values. access to this area could cause problems.
Appeal- Hart is protected.
Over all C and D are the best choices
Summary
Be leaders and not followers, make a stance that will be respected and talked about in the positive for many years to come. Keep Health, and subtainability in mind at all times. Yes you can create jobs, and provide income, but none of that matters if we become sick or poison our water. Please Please Protect the well being of people and the land over money. Money isn't everything. We are Yukoners prove that we can still lead a simple clean life. So please protect that. Be Canadian, let the world follow our positive foot steps toward a greener future
RUWA
1) Have an active and appropriate staffed committees staffed with 3rd party specialists. These would over see transportation of dangerous goods, assess contamination risks and planned response to clean ups. Over look the follow up of reclaiming the land. Make the rules and regulations not only based on money, as these companies will just pay the money to violate Rules and Regulations to get a head.
2) Make Rules and Regulations, management and development based on what is right for the environment first, no whats economically beneficial.
3) Take our time to make decisions. The minerals have been there a very long time, and are not going anywhere. Who knows we may have a major break through in technology in a few years that can change the way we mine! And at that time the prices may be even more in favour for Canada.
4) Make sustainable decisions and actions to reflect to Canadians and the world that we care about protecting our beautiful land. These are decisions that can't be taken back, the land will be marked forever, for our children.
5) Lets be leaders in changing the way humans use this planet of our. Be a strong Canadian voice, don't be push overs.
LUD
I agree with Plan C and Plan D.
Again it comes down to having sound policies and procedures to carry these designations through when we open up the land to the world to mine. And not after the fact, no more grandfathering in. It should all be in place, assessed and approved as all other government actions.
512. Website Submission at 10:23 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I'm concerned with any development or extraction of resources taking place within the Peel watershed.
Concept A
This concept is unacceptable. The area needs to be kept intact and this concept will not do that.
Concept B
This concept is unacceptable. It will allow for development within the Peel watershed which should be maintained as an intact wilderness area.
Concept C
This concept is unacceptable. It will not adequately preserve the Peel watershed.
Concept D
This concept is unacceptable. The Peel watershed should be protected as outlined in the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
I urge the Yukon government to manage the Peel according to the Final Recommended Plan. Yukoners have an opportunity to preserve one of Canada's largest intact wilderness areas. This government has an opportunity to leave a legacy by preserving the Peel watershed. The wilderness is what defines us as Yukoners and we have a unique opportunity to really make a difference by preserving the Peel watershed in the way it was meant to be preserved--as per the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
There is only value in the Peel watershed remaining an intact wilderness. Any mining or other extraction activities would damage the area and I don't think that's acceptable.
LUD
The whole Peel watershed should be a Protected Area. I don't think any of the other land use designations are acceptable for application in the Peel watershed.
513. Website Submission at 10:30 PM
Final Recommended Plan
This plan is a good compromise of protection and some development. It maintains the integrity of Snake, Wind and Bonnet Plume watersheds. I support this plan for the Peel Watershed area.
Concept A
The following comments apply to Concepts A through D.
My biggest concern is that the RUWA land use designation leaves the door open for future development. It may be difficult to stop development once it begins in these areas.
Furthermore, it appears that the RUWA Corridor designation is simply in place to keep development out of sight and out of mind.
I am also concerned about the IMA Zone III in such close proximity to the Peel River (i.e. zones 13 and 15).
These concepts seem to be a patchwork of different land use designations. What is required to maintain the wilderness and ecological values is a more uniform land use designation throughout the area.
Summary
I feel the government should have honoured the work done by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan. This plan was developed over six years with input from First Nations, governments, the public and many stakeholders. Please take into account all the work these people did and listen to the people that call Yukon home.
RUWA
There should NOT be any mineral explorations because it is a sensitive area. Any Class 1 activities could lead to more exploration (ie class 2 or 3 or future mine development). These types of activies are not consistent with a land use designation category that is meant to protect important wilderness, ecological and cultural values.
LUD
The RUWA designation seems like a way to keep development out of sight and out of mind. I don't think that this is an ecologically sound way to manage a watershed. It is not simply about protecting the river corridor.
514. Website Submission at 10:31 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Looks perfect. Great, let's go with this one. Good job.
Concept A
...um. This is a bit silly. It goes totally against everything that was drawn up in the original planning process. You know, that process that was drawn up using "planners" using public and FN input.
Concept B
...Ok, this is getting ridiculous, really. This is a slight variation of "Concept" A.
Concept C
I guess this is slowly getting closer to what it should be, but it isn't there yet.
Concept D
Come on, are you serious? No, no, NO!
Summary
Pease, really. This is so ridiculous that I have a hard time believing that you will actually listen to what the public has to say if you don't agree with the public when you won't follow what was the result of a huge process involving formal discussions with First Nations and involved non-partisan, non-agenda driven planners.
RUWA
It sounds like an idealized vague designation that would fit anyone's ideals and would allow industry and pro-industry government to do whatever they wanted
LUD
Go with the original plan. The one created by the planning commission that involved a whole bunch of public consultation. The one that cost a whole bunch of money, just like this one. The one that if you had followed (as required under the UFA) would have helped you avoid spending untold hundreds of thousands of dollars on this sham.
515. Website Submission at 10:51 PM
Concept A
It concern's me that the final recommended plan was proposed after years of research and it is being completely disregarded. There is WAY too much IMA Zone III and II.
Concept B
It concern's me that the final recommended plan was proposed after years of research and it is being completely disregarded. There is WAY too much IMA Zone III and II
Concept C
It concern's me that the final recommended plan was proposed after years of research and it is being completely disregarded. There is WAY too much IMA Zone III and II
Concept D
It concern's me that the final recommended plan was proposed after years of research and it is being completely disregarded. There is WAY too much IMA Zone III and II
RUWA
I support the Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
LUD
I support the Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
516. Website Submission at 11:03 PM
Concept A
Concept A is the best comprimise because at least it allows access to mineral claims.
Concept B
What concerns me is that only 26% of the entire Peel region is designated IMA Zone III
Summary
I object to the final recommended Peel plan. My reasons are outlined below:
1. Here in the Yukon, we have a population of approximately 34,000 people. Yet we get over a billion dollars of federal transfer payments per year – even more when there are special projects like a hydro dam! Much of the federal transfer money goes to individuals with well paying government jobs, government contracts, or government grants. I certainly do not object to money going to essential services such as the medical field. But, my point is, since the federal transfer money continues to flow to a good percentage of Yukoners, many of these Yukoners have decided that they do not want any development in the Peel region. They often have enviable government pensions. Furthermore, their children were raised with a sense that it was normal for huge amounts of government funds to be transferred to such a small population. However, it is not a normal economic situation. Indeed, I strongly believe that one reason many people in the Yukon do not want any development in the Peel is that they are already quite well off, or think they will become as well off as their parents. Some can afford to pay hundreds of dollars a day to go rafting in the Peel region! So, along with their desire to protect the Peel, they personally do not believe they would ever need any further mining or oil and gas development in the Peel region. After all, the federal transfer payments keep pouring in! Think about it, if
2. However, I am part of a self-employed family that is not privy to government grants, contracts, or a government job. I absolutely love to trek up mountains, look at wildflowers, and camp. I have worked in the Peel region as a geological student in the 1970s, and the land made a profound effect on me. Yet I do not want to permanently protect the entire Peel watershed or 80 per cent of it. I want a lot less reliance on federal transfer payments in the Yukon. I want more private industry up here!
3. Think about it. To receive a guaranteed income of $60,000 a year by living off the interest of your investment, at today’s pitifully low interest rates of about 2%, you would need 3 million dollars! Yet guaranteed government pensions of $60,000 are not uncommon in the Yukon. Indeed, these pensions are supposed to be indexed to inflation. Where is all this money going to come from?
4. Are exploration companies going to be compensated fairly or just booted out after they have spent millions of dollars in exploration and development?
5. When I have grandchildren, I would like them to have an opportunity to work on a gas well or mine in the Peel region if they wanted to. For example, maybe they could be a geophysicist, hydro-geologist, or even a hard-working labourer. But to permanently take away so much of the Peel Watershed from any kind of development is extremely restrictive.
6. The Peel Watershed is over 14 per cent of the Yukon, another 10.36% of the Yukon is fully protected. There are usually buffer areas around fully protected areas. Development north of the Eagle Plains region is greatly discouraged due to the Porcupine Caribou. Indeed, huge chunks of the Yukon are supposed to be off limits.
RUWA
As to the RUWA - Wilderness river Corridor and their restrictions on noise levels. However, it should be noted that the Yukon government does not legally have the ability to impose restrictions on overflights. This is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. For example, pilots were not allowed to use the air strip in Banff National Park. Indeed, just to be allowed to land on that air strip in an emergency took a lot of organized effort. The air strip in Jasper National Park is entirely closed. Indeed, the safety of pilots and their passengers is seen as secondary in importance to the integrity of the park, which is ridiculous!
517. Website Submission at 11:35 PM
Final Recommended Plan
the Final Recommended Plan is the result of long consultations with all stake holders
my concern is that the Yukon Government has problems to accept that
Concept A
The RUWA and RUWA corridors don't offer adequate protection
the PA areas appeal to me if they don't allow road access to existing claims
Concept B
see above (last answer)
Concept C
see above
Concept D
PA areas larger but river corridors still not protected
Summary
it would be the easiest solution to turn the area into a National Park
RUWA
no road access and no new development
limits surface disturbance to 0.0%
LUD
change all RUWA areas to PA areas
on February 25, 2013
518. Website Submission at 12:29 AM
Final Recommended Plan
All of them! What appeals to me is that at least 55% of the area is permanently protected. I also like that the Final Recommended plan is a result of an extensive 6 year process, approved by First Nations.
Concept A
I don't like the RUWA designations, and that there is no guarantee that 55% of the area would be permanently protected. It seems the best of all the 'new' concept options
Concept B
too many IMA's
Concept C
not enough protected area
Concept D
more than river corridors need to be protected
Summary
Please keep as much of this area as protected as possible. This amazing, pristine area is more valuable than what resources can be extracted from it. It is truly one of the last true wildernesses on the planet.
RUWA
I prefer the intent and description of the WA. The RUWA designation seems that it would make it easier for mining and exploration to occur....or at least that the possibility exists, as compared to the original WA designation.
LUD
Please keep the designations as per the Final Recommended Plan.
519. Website Submission at 1:02 AM
Final Recommended Plan
“the final recommended Plan”
It is not the “legitimate plan” for the area, as claimed by preservationists. In fact, it should not even be called “the final recommended Plan”. It is only one step in the process to build “the Peel Watershed Land Use Plan”. The government is merely following the protocol previously set out for it in order to deal with this issue. Then a “legitimate” final plan can be made based on the public input.
It does not balance the environment and the economy. From 1999 to 2009 there are only about 1100 people on record as having been in this area. Does this represent the “thriving tourism and guide outfitting industry” presented by TIA Yukon in its argument supporting the banning of mineral exploration? If so, I can only assume that they wish to create a special playground that only the very rich and famous individuals of society can afford to enjoy. Plans to send one raft a day (as is the case for the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park) down the rivers is not ”preserving the Wilderness”. Wilderness can only be preserved by the total banning of all human activity in the area. No-one, including rafters and outfitters, should be allowed in. Only this will keep it truly WILD. But how many people will support this concept?
So it is safe to say that in everybody's mind (including that of the preservationist's) there is some concept that the area is going to be used by humans. The only question is “to what degree”?
The final recommended Plan is not a fair and balanced approach to land use planning. It gives no option for revision on the majority of the Peel Watershed. From an active land management view, there is nothing of value to come from the presented final recommended Plan. Simply locking up 80 % of the land mass to prevent its resources from being utilized is not “Land Management”. You will have destroyed a major asset of the territory, namely a century of mineral exploration. You will have also wasted that part of the world's environment that initially produced the wealth to pay for this exploration. The world cannot afford such wastefulness.
To paraphrase TIA Yukon's attitude, the final recommended Plan “could have serious consequences for” the mineral exploration companies “if implemented”. The final recommended Plan doesn't “address the needs of” the mining industry. Similarly, it is difficult to understand how exploration companies “would have certainty for sustainable operations” under the final recommended Plan. Fair and reasonable access to existing claims is a step in the right direction.
I don't claim to have a full grasp of this complex project, not knowing the exact outlay of mineral claims, timber potential, oil / gas/ coal potential, and trapping/ hunting/ fishing potential. According to TIA Yukon, they want to be king of all they can see from the top of the highest mountains. It's a scenario for a multitude of conflicts. I simply don't have the time in my self-employed daily life to do due justice to the topic. So I will decline to judge one proposal over the other. However, I am obviously not one of the “most Yukoners” individuals. In fact no-one even surveyed me or my family. I wonder how many of my friends were surveyed?
But I do claim that it's not a scenario that can nor should be resolved simply by “democratic” means. There are far too many opinions being expressed with little or no understanding of the topic. Copied statements simply signed, based only on emotion (sure, I enjoy a long hike to the top of a mountain range far from the maddening crowd, but I also need to be able to support myself and my family by ways other than government handouts). Rather, this conflict should be solved by a fair and systematic balancing of the equations by impartial, educated individuals; certainly not guided by a former guide/outfitter. ----THE END---
Thank you for giving me this opprtunity to vent my spleen on this issue. ---[name protected under ATIPP Act]--- A more than frustrated Placer Miner for 35 years, with a B.Sc. (Zoology) (Who told the Fisheries Department in the early 80's that fish would re-establish themselves in placer-mined creeks, was scoffed at for such an outlandish thought, and is now forced to comply with ever tightning effluent and reclamation restrictions to protect what they now classify as a fish stream! )
Concept B
Concept A and B have the benfit of allowing more land available for oil and gas exploration.
RUWA
The concept of a RUWA corridor is a good one, although the possible restriction on noise levels could be a problem. Remember that the Yukon Government has no jurisdiction over the aviation industry's airspace.
520. Website Submission at 7:19 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Implement the Final Recommended Plan as developed. YG and the Federal Gov't have negotiated land claims with YT First Nations, and these must be respected. As well, this pristine area must be managed for future generations - the Final Plan does this more effectively than the various concepts proposed herein. Stick with the original Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
Think long-term, not short-term. We need to reconcile short-term economic benefits with longer-term environmental and sustainability needs. The track record of oil, gas and mining reclamation in Yukon suggests that the short-term economic benefits of these activities will be outweighed by the longer-term environmental impacts left behind.
521. Website Submission at 7:20 AM
Final Recommended Plan
We like how all 3 rivers - the Wind, the Bonnet Plume and Snake are fully protected. NO CORRIDORS!!
We like how the areas that have some space for development are already near existing infrastructure (Dempster highway) and how even these are removed from the Tombstone Territorial Park. Wonderful.
Concept A
Absolutely nothing here appeals to us. We reject this idea completely - both corridors and the lack of protection of the 3 key peel rivers....
I outlined my concerns earlier.
Concept B
Same problems with the river corridors. So they are a little bigger - so what? Again go to the Missinaibi River - is that where you got this idea??
Concept C
Same problem....so you protected the Snake here. Great...but what about the other rivers - the Wind, the Bonnet Plume??
Please do something that will work not a patchwork quilt that will just fall apart in the end. The only thing that can benefit from these plans is industry.
Concept D
Same problem..another patchwork. So you "protect" the start and end of the Snake. What kind of picture is this?
As I mentioned before. Go through Northern Ontario....do you want the Yukon to look like it?
Summary
Please do something brave for the land and the people of the Yukon. Take a clear position - the one set out in the Peel Planning Commission's final recommended plan.
RUWA
We suggest eliminating this designation completely - both the RUWA and the RUWA Wilderness River Corridor.
The bottom line: You can not do everything! And if you try to do this you will surely destroy the wilderness that you want to save.
Values are about choices and we must choose between preserving what is there or not, not something try to push a road through the middle which simply destroys what you think you are somehow preserving.
If you want the mining etc to go through then be HONEST about it. Say you just want to be able to have mines here and stop trying to make it seem like you can do both. You can not. Look at northern Ontario (see below).
LUD
We believe that the only plan that should be followed is the one set out by the Peel Planning Commission the Final Plan where 55% of the Peel is permanently protected and 25% under interim protection.
My husband and I have spend a great deal of time in the Peel region, along the Dempster, along the Bonnet Plume river (paddled it alone the two of us) and the Snake and Peel river as well.
I do not want the Peel rivers or land to look like northern Ontario. Have any of you been there? Take a canoe trip up the Missinaibi river sometime - then you will know what the Peel rivers will be like. When you paddle you see light and empty spaces behind a FACADE of trees and hear trucks in the distance where no roads are shown on a map (logging roads). This was a wilderness river and a premier whitewater river in Canada....but now the CORRIDOR is exactly that...no wilderness.
Before you do this to the Yukon, spend some money and send everyone who is making a decision to the MIssinaibi river for a week and any other Northern Ontario river for that matter! Then decide what you really want to do.
Please save the region. Follow the plan already set out.[name protected under ATIPP Act] and [name protected under ATIPP Act]
522. Website Submission at 7:22 AM
LUD
I have lived in the Yukon for over 30 years, and wilderness is very important to me. It is why I live here, and it is important to my lifestyle and my livelihood. I own part of a wilderness tour company, and have guided many trips in various areas of the Yukon.
I agree that the wilderness beauty of the Peel Region is important, but I feel the same about all other wilderness areas of the Yukon.
The government’s proposal of using tools including limiting the maximum footprint of surface disturbance and keeping river corridors protected from claim staking goes a long way to recognizing the importance of wilderness beauty and keeping most of it untouched. I think the government’s new tools should be used in other parts of the Yukon to give more protection to other wilderness areas. Mandatory reporting of Class 1 mining is a good step, but it would be better if there was also advance notice given to other companies that use an area before that work happens.
I think what the government is proposing is more realistic and balanced than what the Commission recommended.
523. Website Submission at 7:22 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Absolutely nothing here appeals to us. We reject this idea completely - both corridors and the lack of protection of the 3 key peel rivers....
I outlined my concerns earlier.
Concept A
Same problems with the river corridors. So they are a little bigger - so what? Again go to the Missinaibi River - is that where you got this idea??
Concept B
Same problems with the river corridors. So they are a little bigger - so what? Again go to the Missinaibi River - is that where you got this idea??
Concept C
Same problem....so you protected the Snake here. Great...but what about the other rivers - the Wind, the Bonnet Plume??
Please do something that will work not a patchwork quilt that will just fall apart in the end. The only thing that can benefit from these plans is industry.
Concept D
Same problem..another patchwork. So you "protect" the start and end of the Snake. What kind of picture is this?
As I mentioned before. Go through Northern Ontario....do you want the Yukon to look like it?
Summary
Please do something brave for the land and the people of the Yukon. Take a clear position - the one set out in the Peel Planning Commission's final recommended plan.
RUWA
We suggest eliminating this designation completely - both the RUWA and the RUWA Wilderness River Corridor.
The bottom line: You can not do everything! And if you try to do this you will surely destroy the wilderness that you want to save.
Values are about choices and we must choose between preserving what is there or not, not something try to push a road through the middle which simply destroys what you think you are somehow preserving.
If you want the mining etc to go through then be HONEST about it. Say you just want to be able to have mines here and stop trying to make it seem like you can do both. You can not. Look at northern Ontario (see below).
LUD
We believe that the only plan that should be followed is the one set out by the Peel Planning Commission the Final Plan where 55% of the Peel is permanently protected and 25% under interim protection.
My husband and I have spend a great deal of time in the Peel region, along the Dempster, along the Bonnet Plume river (paddled it alone the two of us) and the Snake and Peel river as well.
I do not want the Peel rivers or land to look like northern Ontario. Have any of you been there? Take a canoe trip up the Missinaibi river sometime - then you will know what the Peel rivers will be like. When you paddle you see light and empty spaces behind a FACADE of trees and hear trucks in the distance where no roads are shown on a map (logging roads). This was a wilderness river and a premier whitewater river in Canada....but now the CORRIDOR is exactly that...no wilderness.
Before you do this to the Yukon, spend some money and send everyone who is making a decision to the MIssinaibi river for a week and any other Northern Ontario river for that matter! Then decide what you really want to do.
Please save the region. Follow the plan already set out.
Katherine Tiede and Manfred Gosch
dugosch@northwestel.net
Box 21055
524. Website Submission at 7:23 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Absolutely nothing here appeals to us. We reject this idea completely - both corridors and the lack of protection of the 3 key peel rivers....
I outlined my concerns earlier.
Concept A
Same problems with the river corridors. So they are a little bigger - so what? Again go to the Missinaibi River - is that where you got this idea??
Concept B
Same problems with the river corridors. So they are a little bigger - so what? Again go to the Missinaibi River - is that where you got this idea??
Concept C
Same problem....so you protected the Snake here. Great...but what about the other rivers - the Wind, the Bonnet Plume??
Please do something that will work not a patchwork quilt that will just fall apart in the end. The only thing that can benefit from these plans is industry.
Concept D
Same problem..another patchwork. So you "protect" the start and end of the Snake. What kind of picture is this?
As I mentioned before. Go through Northern Ontario....do you want the Yukon to look like it?
Summary
Please do something brave for the land and the people of the Yukon. Take a clear position - the one set out in the Peel Planning Commission's final recommended plan.
RUWA
We suggest eliminating this designation completely - both the RUWA and the RUWA Wilderness River Corridor.
The bottom line: You can not do everything! And if you try to do this you will surely destroy the wilderness that you want to save.
Values are about choices and we must choose between preserving what is there or not, not something try to push a road through the middle which simply destroys what you think you are somehow preserving.
If you want the mining etc to go through then be HONEST about it. Say you just want to be able to have mines here and stop trying to make it seem like you can do both. You can not. Look at northern Ontario (see below).
LUD
We believe that the only plan that should be followed is the one set out by the Peel Planning Commission the Final Plan where 55% of the Peel is permanently protected and 25% under interim protection.
My husband and I have spend a great deal of time in the Peel region, along the Dempster, along the Bonnet Plume river (paddled it alone the two of us) and the Snake and Peel river as well.
I do not want the Peel rivers or land to look like northern Ontario. Have any of you been there? Take a canoe trip up the Missinaibi river sometime - then you will know what the Peel rivers will be like. When you paddle you see light and empty spaces behind a FACADE of trees and hear trucks in the distance where no roads are shown on a map (logging roads). This was a wilderness river and a premier whitewater river in Canada....but now the CORRIDOR is exactly that...no wilderness.
Before you do this to the Yukon, spend some money and send everyone who is making a decision to the MIssinaibi river for a week and any other Northern Ontario river for that matter! Then decide what you really want to do.
Please save the region. Follow the plan already set out. [name protected under ATIPP Act] and [name protected under ATIPP Act]
525. Website Submission at 7:37 AM
RUWA
Clearly the YTG process, in contravention to the UFA, is a bit of a joke. The Peel Commission did its job according to the rules our society agreed on.
While I disagree strongly with the plan proposed by YTG, really that's not the point. The point is that YTG is doing an end-run around the process the public, Canada, Yukon and First Nations agreed to. That is the big issue, and so regardless of the conclusion of this YTG proposed plan, I could never support it. Shame on the Yukon Party!
By bypassing the existing process, YTG is undermining our society, destroying trust between levels of government, and casting doubt on the land use planning process defined by the UFA. This process is key to the sustainable development (oxymoron, I know) of this amazing corner of the earth we call our home.
LUD
Suggestion: Use the Peel Planning Commission's plan. Period.
526. Website Submission at 7:57 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Wilderness is adequately represented. It is a compromise that I can live with. "Balance" includes temporal and not just spatial considerations.
This plan represents First Nation and community interests and years of public input.
Concept A
I am very concerned that most of the area is IMA. Protected areas are not adequately represented.
Concept B
Protected areas are not well represented
Concept C
protected areas are not adequatedly represented
Concept D
protected areas are still not adequately represented
Summary
Don't let today's greed cheat future generations' ability to benefit from wilderness's bounty.
RUWA
It won't work. Don't allow new access and don't allow resource extraction.
LUD
Delete "integrated management" concept. This should be a WILDERNESS area
527. Website Submission at 8:14 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Concept A
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Concept B
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Concept C
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Concept D
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
Summary
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
RUWA
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
LUD
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.
528. Website Submission at 8:38 AM
Concept D
leave it completely protected
RUWA
Leave it protected.
529. Website Submission at 8:48 AM
Final Recommended Plan
to much protection can be managed better than this
Concept A
i like
Concept B
i like this plan
Concept C
second or third choice
Concept D
its good
530. Website Submission at 8:50 AM
Final Recommended Plan
All of them! This plan is the result of many years of work. This plan is the result of a democratic process. Attempts to overrule it are undemocratic.
Summary
Stay with the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
I think the RUWA is a bad idea. I distrust vague phrases like "temporary and controlled access to the area". How long is temporary, by whom is access controlled?
LUD
Why is the government proposing land use designations other than those in the Final Recommended Plan? My suggestion is to get rid of the new land use designations, and go back to the designations proposed by the Peel Land Use Planning Commission.
531. Website Submission at 8:52 AM
Final Recommended Plan
100% protection
Concept A
100% protection/NO ROADS
Concept B
100% protection/NO ROADS
Concept C
100% protection/NO ROADS
Concept D
100% protection/NO ROADS
Summary
100% protection/NO ROADS
RUWA
This should have never come to this. We were consulted already with the original Peel commission. I wanted 100% protection, but was willing to settle for the Commission's compromise of 80% protection for now and revisited in the future. Since this is re-opened, I want 100% protection again. NO ROADS.
Sincerely, [name and personal information protected under ATIPP Act]
LUD
100% protection. NO ROADS.
532. Website Submission at 8:59 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The original Peel Commission's recommendation should be implemented.
Concept A
The original Peel Commission's plan should be implemented.
Concept B
The original Peel Commission's plan should be implemented.
Concept C
The original Peel Commission's plan should be implemented.
Concept D
The original Peel Commission's plan should be implemented.
Summary
The original Peel Commission's plan should be implemented. It is a good compromise.
RUWA
The original Peel Commission's recommendation should be implemented.
LUD
The original Peel Commission's recommendation should be implemented.
533. Website Submission at 9:11 AM
Final Recommended Plan
As per previous sceen
RUWA
The value of the Peel Watershed cannot be protected by allowing other land uses to encroach, no matter how well managed.
I support the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
534. Website Submission at 9:20 AM
Final Recommended Plan
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
Concept A
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
Concept B
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
Concept C
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
Concept D
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
Summary
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
RUWA
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
LUD
i fully support the final recommended peel watershed land use plan period.
535. Website Submission at 9:21 AM
Final Recommended Plan
The Peel Watershed holds world class mineral deposits, which will be an asset to the Canadian economy. In such an area we expect world class safety and environmental standards associated with mining, but banning mining all together in such a mineral-rich area of the Territory is not the best plan for the Peel Watershed. Please re-evaluate the proposed land use designations.
LUD
The Peel Watershed holds world class mineral deposits, which will be an asset to the Canadian economy. In such an area we expect world class safety and environmental standards associated with mining, but banning mining all together in such a mineral-rich area of the Territory is not the best plan for the Peel Watershed. Please re-evaluate the proposed land use designations.
536. Website Submission at 9:39 AM
Final Recommended Plan
My only concern is that it is already a compromise. The original recommendations of the consultation process were to protect more land - the Final Recommended Plan represents the MINIMUM amount of protection that is acceptable. This is the only plan that should be considered. it has already been accepted and ratified - they only way this government can serve its electorate honestly is to uphold the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept A
Concept A is not acceptable because it does not provide adequate protection/conservation.
The Final Recommended Plan is the only acceptable plan.
Concept B
concept B does not provide adequate conservation and protection of the Peel River Watershed.
The Final Recommended Plan is the only acceptable concept.
Concept C
Concept C does not provide adequate protection of the Peel River Watershed.
The Final Recommended Plan is the only acceptable plan. Yukoners of all stripes have already voted on it and accepted it! The Yukon Party has an opportunity to demonstrate its integrity, common sense, and willingness to listen to the citizens of the Territory by upholding the Final Recommended Plan. Show that we do have a democracy in Yukon!
Concept D
Concept D does not provide adequate conservation and protection of the Peel River Watershed. The Final Recommended Plan is the only acceptable plan. We have already voted on it, and it has been ratified in government.
It's now your choice to show that you respect Yukoners' - including First Nations and the Umbrella Final Agreement. This entire "re-consultation" process is anti-democratic and dishonest. Do the right thing and uphold the Final Recommended Plan.
RUWA
The Final Recommended Plan is the only balanced approach for the Peel River Watershed.
LUD
Stop trying to change what 6 years of proper consultation has produced. The Final Recommended Plan is the voice of Yukoners from all sectors and interest groups. Stop wasting taxpayers money trying to get agreement on changing a solid plan because your party has other ideas. This current process is shameful.
537. Website Submission at 9:40 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I support all aspects of the Final Recommended Plan as done by the Peel watershed Planning Commission and no aspects concern me.
Concept A
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
Concept B
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
Concept C
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
Concept D
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
RUWA
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
LUD
I only support the Peel watershed Planning Commission Final Recommended Plan and none of these Yukon government changes.
538. Website Submission at 9:46 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I am 100% in support of the Final Recommended Plan. I support the designated Special Management Areas, the Wilderness Areas and the Integrated Management Areas. As well, I support the extensive and expensive consultation process which lead to this decision - consulting Yukoners and First Nations - resulting in a democratic and fair decision. This is an opinion I have already voiced many times (and submitted) in the past. I feel this is a safe and effective approach to protecting the watershed and the wildlife and ecosystems, and first nations and outfitters that depend on the area for survival and livelihood. I absolutely do not want to see mining and exploration being done in the Special Management Areas. I am especially concerned regarding (1) the added change and additional proposals tabled since the Final Recommended Plan was agreed upon; (2) the potential for development that the other Concepts outline. I am in support of responsible land use planning throughout the Yukon - I would like to see the Peel protected and the Final Recommended Plan (finally) put into effect. I am in support of mining and exploration and a healthy economy - just not in the Peel Watershed.
Concept A
I absolutely do NOT support Concept A - It affects too many rivers - and the idea of having temporary bridges/roads is ridiculous - the impact of this is hugely concerning - there is no effective or protective policy in place for safe and complete mining clean-up in the Yukon - Faro's Reclamation Project is a classic example. This looks great on a map - however would be disastrous in real-life. As well, I question the people who have drawn up these maps - have they ever been to the Peel? To shade in a teeny area around the rivers and attempt to present it as 'protected' is close to being offensive. Also, the Tombstone Area is already protected - this should be in a different colour - not made to look like it is a consideration this Concept has created.
Concept B
I do not support Concept B for the same reasons outlined in Concept A.
Concept C
I do not support Concept C for the same reasons previously mentioned.
Concept D
I do not support Concept D for the same reasons mentioned. I find this process difficult and somewhat tedious as I have already submitted and voiced my opinions and concerns during the original Peel land use planning.
RUWA
I find this very confusing. I find it very 'wordy' and embedded in potential loop-holes to allow for development any where YTG deems appropriate. I was very satisfied with the Original land use planning process. I find your phrase "A Protected Area may become a Special Management Area if management planning is required" very questionable. Further questions are: who decides if management planning is required. Is this a private process? This is but one example of 'sketchy' language throughout all the land use designations.
LUD
Yes! Please use the Land Use Designations that are outlined in the Final Recommended Plan.
539. Website Submission at 9:52 AM
Summary
We prefer the government's approach, and are opposed to the Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan.
540. Website Submission at 9:57 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I fully support the Final Recommended Plan. I like that there are no roads allowed for the protected areas, which ensures the ecological integrity of the area. It is a balanced plan and allows for the government to modify the level of protection granted for the land protected on an interim basis.
Concept A
I only support the Final Recommended Plan. The options provided by the government are confusing and were created behind closed doors.
Concept B
I only support the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
I only support the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept D
I only support the Final Recommended Plan.
Summary
I urge you to respect the right of First Nations as required by the Umbrella Agreement, and choose the Final Recommended Plan as created by the Peel Watershed Commission.
RUWA
I only support the Final Recommended Plan by the Peel Watershed Commission.
LUD
I do not agree with the proposed land use designations. I support the Final Recommended Plan because it is fair, balanced and respect the rights of First Nations.
541. Website Submission at 10:08 AM
Final Recommended Plan
too much mining but best option
Concept A
Mining and oil much too close to the water ways and too much of it
Concept B
Not enough PA area
Concept D
Still not enough PA area, too much mining
RUWA
To try to do both is an oxymoron.
Keep it pristine , do not allow mining in the area, there is enough placed that have been destroyed by mining . The final recommendation from the Peel Planing Commission's should be followed, it's the best of the worst.
LUD
The final recommendation from the Peel Planing Commission's should be followed.
542. Website Submission at 10:48 AM
Summary
The only valid plan for the Peel Watershed is the final recomended plan.
543. Website Submission at 11:13 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I think the Final Recommended Plan should be approved and implemented. It offers the most protection to the region and respects First Nations and collaborative planning processes.
I like the large area of SMA.
Concept A
I am concerned that this plan allows for greater development of the watershed. This plan allows for development in far too much of the region (in the RUWA).
Concept B
I am concerned that this plan allows for greater development of the watershed than the Final Recommended Plan.
Concept C
I am concerned that this plan allows for greater development of the watershed.
Concept D
This plan again does not protect enough of the watershed.
RUWA
I live in the Yukon because of the wilderness and intact ecosystems. The Peel watershed should be protected, not "actively managed". I want to see the RUWA land use scrapped- it is meaningless in terms of protection. Instead, I want the area protected and off-limits to development.
LUD
I would like to see the plan that was recommended by the Commission implemented.
544. Website Submission at 11:40 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I agree with this plan as the best, most thoroughly consulted and a decent compromise between protection and development. I would actually like 100% protection for the immediate future.
Concept A
To much land use
Concept B
Too much land use
Concept C
Too much land use
Concept D
Too much land use.
Summary
I believe the government should accept the original final recommended plan
LUD
I believe this RUWA designation is not necessary. i believe the use of the same colour as WA on the final recommended plan is disingenuous at best and most probably intentionally deceitful.
545. Website Submission at 11:52 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the idea of the First Nations use being codified and included, however, the borders of the designated use areas concern me.
There is no excuse for any exploitation of nonrenewable resources within this area.
Concept A
All of it concerns me. I think the preservation of the Peel River watershed is the most important conservation issue facing Yukoners today.
Summary
The best management option available is to return to the original plan, agreed to by ALL interested parties. The gerrymandered borders pandering to mining interests are not acceptable.
RUWA
Yes, yes I do. Go back to the original agreement that included ALL concerned parties.
LUD
Again, return to the original agreement. There are plenty of areas for exploitation of nonrenewable resources - there is only one Peel Watershed.
546. Website Submission at 11:55 AM
Final Recommended Plan
I would advocate in 0 % surface disturbance of the area. The climate in this area is cool with a very short growing season. If surface disturbance does occur, it would require decades before the vegetation remotely mimics the vegetation that occurred previously. I am also doubtful on how stringent the territorial government will be on enforcing that appropriate action is taken to ensure reclamation is successful. It will be costly to send enforcement officers to ensure companies that are permitted to cause these disturbances follow regulations.
Concept A
I do not like the idea of having a high level of active management since it means that specific requirements for different activity may be subject to change. I perfer concrete regulations that I know will help protect this area. I would to see a larger buffer around the river corridors. Overall, there needs to be more Protected Areas.
Concept B
This better than Concept A with the increased continuity of Tombstone Territorial Park, but I still do not like the high level of active management.
Concept C
Concept C is better than both Concept A and B since it has more Protected Areas. I believe the protected corridors need to be larger for all the rivers.
Concept D
Like Concept C, it is better than both Concept A and B. However, I still think there needs to be more Protected Areas. I rather see a continuous Protected Area along the Snake River.
Summary
I firmly believe that protecting the entire extent of this unique area should be the ultimate goal. This area is worth much more intact in comparison to it being open to mining disturbance.
RUWA
I would advocate in 0 % surface disturbance of the area. The climate in this area is cool with a very short growing season. If surface disturbance does occur, it would require decades before the vegetation remotely mimics the vegetation that occurred previously. I am also doubtful on how stringent the territorial government will be on enforcing that appropriate action is taken to ensure reclamation is successful. It will be costly to send enforcement officers to ensure companies that are permitted to cause these disturbances follow regulations.
LUD
I want to see the Peel Watershed protected 100%.
547. Website Submission at 11:55 AM
Final Recommended Plan
Please stick to the plan as it was originally envisioned. Thank you.
Concept A
Please stick to the plan as it was originally envisioned. Thank you.
Concept B
Please stick to the plan as it was originally envisioned. Thank you.
Concept C
Please stick to the plan that was created in the original consultation. Thank you.
Concept D
Please stick to the plan as it was originally envisioned. Thank you.
Summary
Please stick to the plan that arose out of the original consultation process. Thank you.
RUWA
Please stick to the plan as it was originally envisioned.
Thank you, [name protected under ATIPP Act]
LUD
Please stick to the original plan. Thank you.
548. Website Submission at 12:04 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I support only the final recommended plan.
Concept A
I support only the final recommended plan.
Concept B
I support only the final recommended plan.
Concept C
I support only the final recommended plan.
Concept D
I support only the final recommended plan.
Summary
I support only the final recommended plan.
RUWA
I support only the final recommended plan.
LUD
I support only the final recommended plan.
549. Website Submission at 12:18 PM
Final Recommended Plan
It works, it makes sense, it is clear, it was agreed to by the affected First Nations and all involved in the real consultation and should be adopted.
The mining industry does not like it, but they will automatically dislike any restriction on their ability to extract resources and make money.
Concept A
The RUWA designation is basically meaningless - anything can be done. Why bother pretending to protect stuff. It only adds a meaningless bureaucratic layer to the basic idea that anyone can do anything they want. It does not do anything more that YESAA already does.
Concept B
RUWA designation is meaningless, affords no protection that is not already offered through YESAA.
Concept C
RUWA designation is meaningless, affords no protection that is not already offered through YESAA.
Concept D
RUWA designation is meaningless, affords no protection that is not already offered through YESAA.
Summary
The new exercise is a total waste of time and taxpayers' money. The resources devoted to this silly exercise should have been used more productively.
The mining industry will actively oppose in principle protecting even a square centimetre of land, so the government should not be beholden to it when making land use designations. In any case, there are hundreds of square kilometres of land that are open to staking in the Yukon.
Currently, none of the mineral deposits in the Peel watershed is economic by any stretch of the imagination. ALL the potentially economic mineral deposits are outside the Peel region. We are not going to be mining iron ore or coal from the Peel region anytime soon.
Active mining in the region will mean building new roads (most likely at taxpayers' expense) and essentially ruining the wilderness character of the region.
This is one of the last few places on our planet that is real wilderness. We owe it to future generations to keep it that way!
RUWA
RUWA is double-speak. RUWA designation is meaningless, affords no protection that is not already offered through YESAA.
LUD
Go back to the Final recommended Plan designations, they made sense.
550. Website Submission at 12:18 PM
Summary
As a long time outfitter, yukon resident, guide, trapper and recently a miner as well as someone who has actually been to the Peel region I believe that we can have responsible development in the area. I also belive in conserving our wildlifand habitat zones and I have concerns about thier continued well being. But I greatly appreciate the reasons and necessity for responsible economic development. Security taken by government to reclaim land is very important and constant monitoring of wildlife and thier habitat is essential to ensuring thier success, especially in the case of migratory animals like caribou, and for areas that are sensitive to activities like lambing. I think it would be worthwhile to look at other jurisdictions who manage to have industrial development as well as healthy wildlife populations and learn from their methods. I think that some areas of high ecological values shouls remain off limits, but that doesn't need to apply to the whole area.
551. Website Submission at 12:26 PM
Summary
If any areas are going to be managed, it has to be managed fairly in an all or none approach. Away with the hypocracy. Green operations and tourism groups damage the environment just as much as industrial and exploratory users,
RUWA
If wilderness protection is the concern, close it off to everyone including ecotourists who leave more garbage and fuel spills and caches than industry. Also, if wildlife population is the concern, no hunting for outsiders or First Nations.
LUD
I propose putting off limits to everything the most sensitive areas, which I can see to be 25-30%. Otherwise, open it up for reasonable, sustainable development. There is enough natural gas in the basin to help alleviate the energy crisis in Yukon for decades to come.
552. Website Submission at 12:27 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
Concept A
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
Concept B
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
Concept C
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
Concept D
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
RUWA
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
LUD
I think you are misleading us all over the ultimate designation of the Peel Watershed Region. I think 8 years and a huge amount of money that went into the Peel Use Land Planning Commission's final report is the report to use for the future.....not this " after election" misleading package.
553. Website Submission at 12:29 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I think that the final recommended plan is too restrictive in its scope and allowances for access and doesn't take into account newer and more modern exploration techniques
Summary
I have lived in the Yukon most of my life, I have gone to school here, and worked here, I plan to raise a family here and I think that the tools suggested by government are a good approach to responsibile development in the territory, not only in the Peel. I think that ongoing monitoring of activity is important as is voluntary class one exploration notification. I think that outfitters and miners and others should be encouraged to talk to one another and work together to lessen impacts or stresses on one anothers activites.
RUWA
I think that this concept or tool is a good idea, as long as there is good base line data, and continued montitoring, before, during and after projects...and that that monitoring is conducted in a scientific and meaningful way
554. Website Submission at 12:30 PM
RUWA
please keep the peel river region pristine and as is, for future generations to decide on what best way to use this land in hopes that by then it won't have to be discussed or debated, the use or sacredness of this area will be evident to anyone. everywhere the white man has mined or fracked the land to extract oil or gas it is sore and cancerous. water is our greatest resource not oil and gas. leave the gas and oil to the middle east they have not forest or river to destroy.
LUD
you make it look logical and fair on paper but what really goes on is eventually exposed and never fair to the people who are part of the land and water.
555. Website Submission at 12:31 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I clearly support the Final Recommended Plan because it was a transparent process chosen by the Yukon Government which reflects my democratic values and I feel my tax dollars were well spent.
I'm not happy about any new concepts introduced by YG at this point in time!
I very much resent having to spend millions more of Yukon taxpayers money on litigation if the final recommended Plan is not accepted by YG.
556. Website Submission at 12:32 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Allow development in all area. Change the complete designations to allow development.
Concept A
I am very concerned that the Yukon governments listens to the vocal eco terrorists who want no development. I say develop the whole area!
Concept B
I am very concerned you are trying to preserve an area which should be developed.
Concept C
The YEMR have advertised the Bonnet Plume basin as open for development. The energy industry is ready to drill in the Bonnet Plume area. Having done the advertising the YTG is now obligated to open the Bonnet Plume basin for postings.
Concept D
Nothing appeals to me, all areas should be developed!
Summary
DEVELOP THE PEEL!
RUWA
It is time to develop the PEEL! Time to allow drilling, fracking, gold exploration and mining! The Yukon has Kluane National Park Preserved. DO NOT PRESERVE THE PEEL!
LUD
Allow roads and development of all kinds. change the proposed land use plan to include all development. Put in a resource access road in the middle of the Peel area.
557. Website Submission at 12:41 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I strongly believe in participatory democracy and that the original Land Use Plan recommendations should remain as is. Politicians come and go and of course are under the influence of the "backroom boys". Minerals in the ground will not move and will still be available to Yukon citizens if at some point in the future decisions are made to develop. [name and personal information protected under ATIPP Act]
Summary
I strongly believe in participatory democracy and feel the original Peel Land Use plan be preserved/observed as is. Politicians are ephemeral while the land and its minerals are always there. If, in future, Yukon residents want to develop the Peel then I would hope a citizen derived committee would be the means to initiate such.
RUWA
I strongly believe in participatory democracy believing that politicians viewpoints are tainted by backroom influences. Therefore my belief is that the original Land Use Plan should stand. The minerals in the ground are not going to move and citizens of Yukon in the future can make decisions reflective of their times. [name protected under ATIPP Act] Whitehorse
LUD
I strongly believe in participatory democracy believing that politicians viewpoints are tainted by backroom influences. Therefore my belief is that the original Land Use Plan should stand. The minerals in the ground are not going to move and citizens of Yukon in the future can make decisions reflective of their times. [name protected under ATIPP Act] Whitehorse
558. Website Submission at 12:42 PM
Final Recommended Plan
What concerns me is that a plan was set forward through years of consultation and that plan is being ignored by the Government. This current plan is misleading in its designations and appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to impliment a plan that will open up the Territory to development that the public is neither in support of nor will be happy with the long term effects.
Concept A
The designations seem unclear and skewed in a way that benefits development over protection for future generations.
First Nations are clearly unhappy with these designations and this reworking of a perfectly legitimate plan laid out by the Commission.
Concept B
Enact the original Peel Watershed Planning Commission's plan. It was carefully thought through and is a fair representation of the wishes of the majority of Yukon peoples.
Concept C
Enact the Peel Watershed Planning Commission's plan for the Peel. It was carefully thought through and is the result of years of legitimate consultation with Yukon people
Concept D
Enact the Peel Watershed Planning Commissions plan. It's a long term plan that perserves the area for future generations and future development.
RUWA
I believe the original Peel Land Use plan put forward by the Peel Watershed Commission ought to be enacted. It was put together through years of consultation with the public and First Nations.
The new plan (RUWA) is not a fair representation of the wishes of the Yukon people.
LUD
Don't let this current round of public input fall on deaf ears. If the majority of comments and feedback support implimenting the original Peel Watershed commission then the government needs to listen.
559. Website Submission at 12:51 PM
Final Recommended Plan
NO Good. Too much protection. I am tired of people saying that the landscape will be scarred and wont be visually appealing. I just returned from 6 weeks in Europe and saw their great use of wind turbines. I agree with green power, but this also "scarred the scenery". Wether it is a road or wind turbines, you are always going to ruin the landscape for a few people.
Concept A
This is the best concept of all. The final recommended plan is too restrictive and I do not agree with it.
I still feel that this is too restrictive.
Concept B
Don't like it. Leave #4 light green. Or yellow.
Concept C
Bad, too much dark green creeping in again.
Concept D
Too much dark green again.
Summary
Remind the hypocritical greenies, that when you fly into the peel that they are burning a fossil fuel, the plane that flew in there was built using metals extracted from the ground, and the fiberglass canoes they paddle with contain many petroleum based products. I love the outdoors and I am not interested in destroying the beautiful territory that I was born and raised in. I do realize though, that responsible resource extraction provides local jobs, benefits the community and the end products of extraction I use in my everyday life. Take a look at the hospital foundation for example. Many of the large donations are made companies that are benefiting from exploration and mining in the Yukon. I feel great the we are getting an MRI machine. Last time I checked CPAWS did not make a donation to our hospital foundation.
And why is there the perception that there is going to be roads built all over the peel? Roads are expensive to build, they are not going to pop up overnight. Any project still has to get approved by YESSAB. With the exemption of the last 4 or 5 years, this area has always been open to staking and potential development. Still no roads or mines though.
LUD
I do not believe that we should exclude this area from the potential development in the mining sector. The mining sector has historically provided a lot of jobs and contributed to Yukon's GDP year after year. Permanently closing down a large portion of this area puts the perception that the Yukon is not a mining friendly territory and I fear that this may have adverse affects on many Yukoners jobs. I also love the outdoors and spend much of my free time exploring, camping, and driving around our beautiful territory. I understand the importance of protecting environmentally sensitive areas; however, blocking out an area that is larger than many states is not the best method. If I had to choose one of YG models it would be the least restrictive model. I believe that we should let YESSAB do their job and assess each project on an as needed basis. Lets NOT make a mistake that we will not be able to reverse in the future.
560. Website Submission at 12:58 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I want total protection of the Peel watershed not a sellout of the land that the current government is prepared to do. If not that, the plan the PPC prepared and the current government is ignoring.
Concept A
No aspects of the present government appeals to me. They are selling out Yukoners and the environment to business.
Concept B
No aspects that the current government puts forward would be acceptable, given their twisted sense of reality, business only.
Concept C
No aspects that the current government puts forward would be acceptable, given their twisted sense of reality, business only.
Concept D
No aspects that the current government puts forward would be acceptable, given their twisted sense of reality, business only.
RUWA
Use the original plan the Peel Planning Commission prepared submitted and which was supported by the vast majority of Yukoners, not the Yukon Party's twisted version.
LUD
Go back to the original plan the PPC made for all Yukoners and don't use the one the Yukon Party has planned primarially for business
561. Website Submission at 1:00 PM
Final Recommended Plan
Go with the Final Recommended Plan
562. Website Submission at 1:02 PM
Final Recommended Plan
I like the aspects of both protection and use of the land. the peel watershed is a beautifull area. I have worked and spent summers up in the bear river and bonnet plume river area's . I think the government is on the right track with this plan. The Yukon was built on mining and mineral exploration and is a fact that just can't be ignored or pushed off.
563. Website Submission at 1:05 PM
Concept C
I believe that there should be a balance of exploration, mining and oil and gas development with oversight and consideration of the natural environment, wildlife habitat and water management. I do not support the very vocal groups who wish to close
