Theme 3: Are there areas within the region you feel should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities?

"I feel the entire watershed should be withdrawn from new mineral and O&G activites"

Theme 1: What parts of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan do you support? Please be specific.

"None, at this time, when considered as a whole. The planning process exhibits symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome--taking on the agenda of your captor, even if this implies your annihilation.

Unfortunately, the recommended plan does not envision any "protection" or re-zoning to avert the wreckless endangerment to our prosperity, social/economic inclusion, and future for wildlife/wilderness protection implied by its recommendations. It has only ever been human affluence (sometimes at the expense of its own, most vulnerable, members) that enabled, amongst other things, understanding and preserving of wildlife & wilderness.

By all means, for governments in a protective mood, consider this an endorsement to protect all the knowledge industries (traditional-geoscience-biology-archeology) and extractive industries associated with high productivity/low ecological footprint (mining, oil & gas, some local tourism--depends on carbon footprint). Most importantly, though, this submission is likely best viewed as a vigil rather than input, endorsement or "view". While there is no scenery along the way, devices of rhetoric are employed to provoke much-warranted thought when considering the potential permanent alienation of future sceintific knowledge and highly-productive resource use in an area 77,000 square kilometers in a jurisdiction where residents rely on $22,000 worth of transfer payments from Canadain taxpayers every year simply for the priviledge of being here.

Decision-makers: We have rarely been so sorely in need of leadership to extricate us from this environmental NGO-capture (not all ENGOs fit this profile), but there are a number who exhibit little respect for First Nation and other fellow Canadians, and who stake their claim in Chapter 11 planning processes and their equivalent.

Those who do so squander their credibility for they seek to manipulate us (treating us as their dupes) to their unimaginative ends. They assume, in fact assert, that they are the ones with the answer to all our ills: withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. Take 25% in the morning, 25% at noon, 50% at night. "Aw, really? We were only asking for 80%, but we cannot, in all good conscience, not lend our voice to 100%! It would be unethical and disloyal. (Stage direction: Look defferentially at person in the audience who appears to be of aboriginal ancestry.)"

Such behaviour is manipulative of First Nations members (mining us with 19th century romantic philosophy as noble savages). It preys on our guardian sentiments, particularly our fears (assuming the self appointed "protectors" are free to enter, mine and market our innermost apprehensions for our childrens' and grandchildrens' prospects--after all, we're not stupid. We know that earth's population growing from 7 to 9 billion before it reverses, and how we handle this reality, will define whether or not our children die of old age; in war; famine; catastrophe or as cast-offs--those who could not keep up with the voracious appetites of the priviledged few insisting on their rights to have "my-pristine-wilderness-experience-while-THEY-eat-organic-cake-in their gang-run, chagas-ridden huts". And after all, we have seen not only our future prospects squandered, but we have the immediate experience of having our very children taken from us, so we have a visceral reaction when the stakes are put before us in this way.)

The "protectors" consolidate their power by exploiting our connections to and love of nature and wilderness--supposedly in need of "protecting", by casting aspersions of some imaginary assault. After all, what is the presumed assault we are all called to protect against in the Peel? This is not set out in the plan which has taken as its purpose to "protect" against some undefinable evil that can be summed up as "exploration and development". BINGO! Secular eco-fundamentalism has its original sin.

There is a net transfer of wealth implied in the recommendations of the plan. Our children get fewer tools and choices with which to manage bigger challenges. Frankly, if this is the will of the people, then the market will demonstrate it by putting up the resources to "retire" propspective scientific research and entire classes of extraction from the economy, as well as compensating our ancestors for what we now consider to be their misplaced investments. The Nature Conservancy developed this business model and has exercised its market power in this way for over 30 years. Now, they haven't arrived to the ranks of Fortune 500 but they have provided the means for this generation to invest in this particular vision for future generations.

But let's be frank, in the Yukon where practically everything is First Nation or Crown land/resource/decision, it is easier to take control of the democratic levers wherever possible and withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. It is not hard to do. For the most part we want to trust someone to give us the "right" answer. And what motive could non-profits possibly have? Our world today knows two forms of power: money and public opinion--the latter implies control over decisions and prospects. The former implies control over...prospects and decisions.

"Honey, can I please get some sleep now? I am tired! Honey, just call Spawcs....What do you mean "Spawcs who"? You know, Spawcs. No, not pointy ears Spawcs. You are such a Trekkie in a Zack and Coady world! No wonder the kids can't talk to you! Spawcs, Services to Protect All Weary Citizens. They are listed in Whitehorse, not Watson Lake, silly. It's an international service, not some mom-and-pop thingy. Whitehorse: Spawcs. You know, see whether they have someone who could park the laundry, cast the kids, indoctrinate the car, and hang my vote out to dry. Being insulated from the consequnces of our decisions is utterly exhausting! Besides, I have pilates at 6:30 am. How could you forget, it's on the electronic calendar. I need my sleep. What? Oh honey, just call Spawcs--it's on autodial. They know what to do. You don't need to be in control of this--just call them. And bring me my chamomile tea, would you?"

The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. We have been offered the opportunity to provide our views on the proposed Peel Watershed draft land use plan. Sadly, I cannot assert this submission amounts to views, as there isn't much scenery available--at best it might be considered a vigil. All the same, I hope this vigil will be worth your consideration. To the extent these observations have deviated from the parameters of land use planning, it is merely a reflection that the whole process has been taken hostage by an external agenda, which demands a broader response, lest there be some notion of trying to locate a decision in the average range. For those of us who love numbers, it is well known that the "average" is completely distroted when you have a deviant extreme or extremes, which is not to suggest that I find the debate on this issue to be polarized between two extremes. There is no polarization in a hostage taking. One side has control and sets the terms of any discourse.

Government: Yukon, Canada & First Nations: Please show your respect for us and understand that Yukoners are, together, capable of rising to the challenge of living sustainbly in a world that holds great demands for us and at least two generations to come. We are not dupes, we are partners.

I encourage you to thank the council members for their time and quiet knashing of teeth these many months, and leave us a with a heavy doorstop, eventually to be recycled, but not an unbearable legacy. Thanks but no thanks is the only acceptable response to the recommended "plan" to eviscerate our democracy, culture, society, economy, environment and decision-making toolbox for this and coming generations."

Theme 4: Should conservation principles and values be the paramount consideration in land use planning for the Peel Watershed? Please explain the reasons for your answer.

"yes"

Theme 4: Do you agree with the conservation principles and values in the plan?

"yes"

Theme 3: If so, where do you think these areas should be?

"all"

Theme 3: Are there areas within the region you feel should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities?

"all"

Theme 2: Are there areas in the region where you feel both industrial (e.g. mining) and nonindustrial (e.g. wilderness tourism) land uses are compatible? If so, where?

"no. non-industrial only should be allowed"

Theme 5: Do you agree that the Wind River corridor should "no longer be recognized as an access corridor"? Why or why not?

"yes."

Theme 5: Are there areas that should remain roadless? If so, where?

"yes, everywhere"

Theme 5: Are there some areas in the region where permanent roads could be allowed? If so, where?

"no"