We've gone ahead and organized our website discussions into seven key themes. Simply choose a theme from the list below to get started. Or, if you have a general comment or a document you would like to post, scroll down to the pink tab at the bottom of this page.
The objective of regional land use planning is to provide guidance for the integrated management of lands and resources in order to ensure sustainable development and sound environmental stewardship while minimizing land use conflicts.
As an overall management approach, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission recommends a “best use” approach to land use within the region, recommending one or more types of protected Special Management Areas (SMAs), each with an emphasis on specific values.
The Commission recommends that 80.6% of the region (16 of 21 Landscape Management Units (LMUs)) be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities, and be designated as Special Management Areas (SMAs).
The Peel Watershed Land Use Planning Commission has incorporated a range of conservation values and principles that apply throughout the planning region. These principles include watershed-level protection, landscape connectivity, wilderness, focal species preservation, key habitats, ecosystem services, eco-region representation, and ecological integrity.
The Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan proposes that surface access in the region be managed in a variety of ways.
The Plan recommends dividing the Peel watershed into 21 Landscape Management Units (LMUs). The size, shape, and designation Specific attributes of each LMU are presented of the LMUs are based on drainage patterns, land based values, and management intent. The zones range in size from 157 km2 to 18,678 km2.
The purpose of a Regional Land Use Plan is to provide clear guidance for the use and management of land and resources. The Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan is currently over 350 pages with a sizeable amount of background narrative, and appendices.
For feedback that does not necessarily fit into one of the seven themes, you can also submit a document.
The latest activity from across all website themes and questions...
Theme 3: Do you have any other comments on this topic?
"There are few areas left with this kind of wilderness. To throw it away for "quick money" is a shame. What about the tourist industry, I'm sure that will suffer. This area will loose it's distinctness and be like any other developed area. There are alot of mineralized areas. Do we need to mine and drill in every valley. I think furture generations will benefit more from a preserved wilderness than another mine or oil well."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.
Theme 3: Are there areas within the region you feel should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities?
"The whole area should be withdrawn. Do we need to drill in every valley? There is no amount of money that could be obtained that would compensate for developing this area. The choice comes down to more money or a pristin wilderness. Greed will not allow some to stop. There is an infinite amount of money to be obtained, we decide how and where to get it. The finite resource is disappearing wilderness."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 4:35 p.m.
Theme 3: Would you change any of the areas that the Recommended Plan designates as either Special Management Areas or Integrated Management Areas? If so, how?
"Protect the area from all development. The mining industry has alot of power and political backing. To sell this area for "quick money" would be a mistake. When companies develope an area like this, a few get richer, the average person gains nothing except degraded land and less wildlife."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
Theme 1: Do you have any other comments on this topic?
"To sell a prestine wilderness for the short term "quick money" is a mistake. Once this area is developed, do we turn to the next prestine wilderness in the pursuit of money? Can't we find places for development that already have roads and develoment. I think future generations will thank us if this area is preserved from development. Once the roads are built and development starts, the area will never be the same. I wonder if that will affect the tourist industry."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
Theme 1: What parts of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan do you not suport? Please be specific.
"I do not support any development in the area. Some areas of the planet should be preserved for the good of all the creatures who depend on a healthy environment. I'm sure developers can find ample areas that already have roads and other development. To target a wild and prestine area seems greedy and irresponsible."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.
Theme 1: What parts of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan do you support? Please be specific.
"100% protection. With all that has been developed, it gives people comfort to know there are places like the Peel Region that are still wilderness. To destroy this area with roads and development would be a shame. I would like to visit the Peel someday, but not if it has nothing to offer except more development."
By Steven Carpenter
in Michigan
on September 02, 2010 at 3:59 p.m.
Theme 1: What parts of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan do you not suport? Please be specific.
"I do not support the part that allows any company or person in with the intent of creating development of any kind or removing the resources for profit. The government has been allowed too many times to make promises that aren't kept. I've seen the destruction searching for oil in Alberta. Keep out! It always sounds good in theory, but never turns out the way you say it should. You are wanting to dig into the heart of Canada. 100% protection! Nothing else will work. If you provide 100% protection, then you can
gaurantee that nothing will get damaged because there will be nothing allowed there to damage it."
By somebody
in Triesen
on September 02, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
Theme 5: Do you agree that the Wind River corridor should "no longer be recognized as an access corridor"? Why or why not?
"All of the Peel should be without roads and no ATVs should be allowed here"
By Maalamba Health and fitness Whitehorse
in Yukon Territory
on September 01, 2010 at 2:53 p.m.
Theme 5: Are there areas that should remain roadless? If so, where?
"The areas should reman as is - roadless"
By Maalamba Health and fitness Whitehorse
in Yukon Territory
on September 01, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
Theme 5: Are there some areas in the region where permanent roads could be allowed? If so, where?
"No, I would not want to see any permanent roads"
By Maalamba Health and fitness Whitehorse
in Yukon Territory
on September 01, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
