Leave all of the area open to exploration until a complete audit of resources is complete

I would give the entire area the highest level of protection.

No form of human exploitation should be allowed in the Peel. Neither Canada nor the Yukon would benefit from industrial development in the Peel. Mineral extraction is a destructive, short term process that strips the land of resources and leaves ghost towns. Not a wise investment in the future.

I believe that the entire area can function as, at most, an Integrated Management Area, with surface road access allowed but restricted to mining/ exploration personnel and activities only. The entire area has undergone significant mineral exploration since at least the early 1960s; yet it is still considered to be among the world's last pristine wilderness areas. That speaks extremely well for the mining and exploration industry, including its activities from the relatively unregulated 1960s and early 1970s.

I wouldn't deny resourse extraction from any of the area, SMAs should only be in SPECIAL areas not a blanket on the entire region.

I think that some of the integrated management areas will spread out to include areas that already have tote road access. We have not been successful ate decommissioning any of these roads

I believe the whole watershed should be protected from further exploration or development of mineral, oil or gas resources. We should be developing other sources of energy instead of more dependence on fossil fuels. Exploration is damaging to the environment and "fuels' the oil companies investment on new sources of fuels instead of investment in safety and careful planning in areas already developed.

The entire area should be protectd from development/exploration

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.

I would designate the entire area as a Protected area, with the restrictions that Special Management Areas provide (no new roads, no development, no new oil and gas or mineral staking).

I would change the Integrated Management areas to Special management areas - and call the entire watershed a protected area.

All areas should be protected , their is plenty of space with minerals and oil and gass in the rest of the yukon that are not as important to protect as the peal or more easily accessed, and where access woudl be less damaging

No, I am in general agreement with the zoning in the Recommended Plan

Any level of development in the entire area would be suicide to our children grandchildren. Nothing short of 100 % protection is acceptable in such an unspoiled area.

The only integrated management areas should be those that already have road access. I notice there is a big chunk in the north central part. How is access going to happen?

I would make the whole area yellow and allow all users the same access.

no they should remain as designated.

The changes I would make would be to have complete protection from resource extraction and from any other activities that have the potential to damage the ecosystem for all of this area.

It's crazy to withdraw such a massive area of the Yukon from exploration before even an audit of resources is completed. The wealth we have and the high standard of living that we enjoy is only sustainable if we can access the resources of the Earth.

Yes, with 100% protection, they will be no need to think we need to manage the area. The value of such a vast expanse of wild land is so far beyond the short term $ a few may gain, it can't be compared. The Yukon can be leaders in investing in the health and well being of its people and wildlife and set the standard for others to follow. Exploration and development is not the way to ensure a future for your citizens -- having clean water, air and thriving food chain is.

The entire area should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities. There should be no industrial development of any kind in the Peel watershed.

The whole of the Peel drainage should be SMAs.

I would allow continued access to the entire region for mineral and oil/gas exploration and production with perhaps only stricter guidelines in some of the more sensitive areas.

Yes, we would like to see the Integrated Management Areas changed to Special Management Areas. We would like all areas to be designated as one type of protected area for ease of implementation and management.

I would definitely change the area #5 from SMA to IMA just because it is surrounded by different IMA, there is no road access and any pollution to that area would affects the surrounding areas.

I would definitely change the area #5 from SMA to IMA just because it is surrounded by different IMA, there is no road access and any pollution to that area would affects the surrounding areas.

NO

The First Nations are calling for 100% protection of the watershed. Their voice should be the dominant one in this discussion. They are backed up by tourism operators and what appears to be the majority of Yukoners. This plan deals only with one portion of the Yukon- one of the rare large wilderness areas in the world. It is much more valuable to us if it remains undeveloped. Carl Shulze continues to claim that mining and pristine wilderness can co-exist in the Peel since exploration has gone on there since the 1960's. Yet, the exploration has in fact left a mess there. Though I have never been in the area I have heard this clearly from journalists, paddlers and people working in the area. Mining activity has never taken off there and they have still managed to leave a mess.

I'd get rid of the integrated management areas and turn them into protected areas. Just because areas are near the Dempster or have been highlighted by resource extraction companies does not mean they have ecological and cultural values that can be bulldozed over.

100% SMA. Most of those claims in the SMAs are there because the government refused to put a moratorium on staking while this process was going on. They knew full well the risk they were taking in staking there, and their licences must not be renewed.

I would change all IMAs to SMAs and removed them from exploration and industrial development.

I would designate 100% of the watershed as Special Management Areas. There would be no Integrated Management Areas.

I say give the entire area the highest level of protection against industrial development

Yes, I would like to see the highest degree of protection for entire watershed. We ask the americans to protect ANWR, and rightly so, but we also need to protect the caribou in their winter habitat.

I would prefer the entire area be protected, as to responses concerning the activities of mining and exploration from the 1960's until now being almost unnoticed that is no excuse to let it continue. Even in "special" managed areas there is no controlling the systems of nature that move and pull its resources (ie water) in depths and reaches we cannot control (ie run-off, seepage and rain), which means industry pollution cannot be controlled either.

September 30, 2010

Peel Watershed Planning Commission
Government of Yukon
P.O. Box 2703
Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2C6

Submitted online via http://www.peelconsultation.ca/Discussions/General.aspx


Re: Areas Proposed to be Withdrawn from New Oil and Gas and Mineral Development

On behalf of the 300 corporate and 4,000 individual members of the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia (AME BC), I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.

Even though AME BC is clearly a BC based association, we have many members that live in Yukon and/or are actively exploring for mineral deposits in Yukon. As such, AME BC has serious concerns regarding the recommendations of the Plan, primarily due to the proposed removal of 80% of lands open to new mineral or oil and gas activities. Removing such a vast area will negatively affect the mineral exploration and development sector both in Yukon and throughout the rest of Canada, including your neighbours in BC. AME BC works with governments, communities, and stakeholders to maintain access to land for mineral exploration that benefits everyone. Minerals are a hidden resource. Our association believes that the unknown value of mineral potential should be properly evaluated and should always form part of an informed discussion about land access and use.

The proposed restrictions in the Plan pose several challenges for our members. AME BC is particularly concerned that the amount of land that may be closed to claim staking in Yukon will increase from 14.5% to 25.8% if the recommendations in the Plan are adopted and that an area the size of Nova Scotia will be removed from staking in the Peel watershed. There are at minimum 219 known mineral occurrences and 13 known mineral deposits in the Peel watershed that are currently underexplored. Although the Plan protects existing mining claims in Special Management Areas (SMAs) and allows new mineral claims in Integrated Management Areas, the conditions of operation and removal of new surface access in SMAs as proposed will render the majority of these claims unworkable. The Plan suggests alternatives to ground and airstrip access for industrial development; however, the reality of the industry is that should a mineral deposit proceed to development, ground access will be required to transport materials and people to and from the mine site, particularly if no new airstrips are permitted. Furthermore, the proposed ban on uranium development throughout the Plan area is based on subjective public opinion, and is not based in science.

Mineral claim holders that are no longer able to work their claims due to restrictions of either an access or mineral nature will seek compensation from government, and the issue of compensation must be considered fairly in any land use planning exercise that restricts or bans activity.

AME BC supports and promotes a safe, modern, environmentally responsible mineral exploration and mine development sector that co-exists with other land uses. We support land use plans that engage First Nations, communities, and stakeholders and build certainty on where mineral exploration and mine development can occur. Given that there are six land use plans to follow the Peel Watershed Planning process in Yukon and considering the removal of 16 out of 21 Landscape Management Units from new mineral exploration and mine development in the Peel plan, we are very concerned that this plan does not accommodate all stakeholders and may set a precedent for exceedingly high levels of protection in Yukon. If principles in the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan are carried over to other regions in Yukon, these could threaten the sustainability of the mineral exploration and development industry, which now contributes $200 million annually to the Yukon economy after years of struggling to re-establish itself in such a high mineral potential jurisdiction.

Land use planning can build certainty for First Nations, communities, and stakeholders, but such planning should be balanced with the federal and territorial legislation already in place to ensure the integrity of the Peel watershed. Furthermore, should a mineral exploration project proceed to development, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board is legislated to review projects and ensure that they proceed in a socially, environmentally, and economically responsible manner.

AME BC proposes that integrated land management, that allows both ground and air access, should take precedence in the plan and that the large majority of the Peel watershed should remain open to mineral exploration and potentially mining.

Thank you for your serious consideration of AME BC’s recommendation to continue to allow new mineral exploration and mine development, and required access, throughout Yukon’s Peel watershed.

Sincerely,

Gavin C. Dirom
President & Chief Executive Officer
Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia

cc:

Yukon Chamber of Mines
AME BC Board of Directors

Both the Special Management Areas and Integrated Management areas should be changed to Protected areas. To allow for existing claims in the SMAs, as well as new and existing industrial activity in the IMAs is a problem. Any type of development or industrial activity will affect the ecological integrity of the area.

I would change IMA 1,3,4,and 5 to SMA. IMA 2 does not have to be designated SMA however,an different LU designation is should be created that will allow the Dempster corridor to remain as a method of transportation, but is otherwise protected.

I would ask that you reconsider access for all stakeholders whether they be eco- tourism, First Nations, environmentalists or miners, prospectors, exploration companies or anyone else.
We should re-examine this whole plan to make it more equitable for all, not merely a invitation for eco-tourism ventures, environmentalist interests and no one else's interests.

The whole of the Peel area should be open to all exploration for all minerals as well as oil and gas.

No. Oil, gas and minerals have already been found in the region and until the area's full potential is assessed, no special management areas should be designated

All of them.

No, mitigation and permitting requirements should be based on sensitivity of a particular area. Some areas will require greater mitigative measures to ensure safe and environmentally responsible exploration and mining. Specific sites of archaeological and cultural importance must be respected.

no, unless there is a acknowledged special concern , ie mineral lick, Archaeological site....

I trust the planners to tell me the answer to this, but I would like to see no mining along the river valleys.

The area on the lower Wind, Snake and Bonnett Plume should be withdrawn. Such development crosses the landscape with seismic trails and changes the nature of access to the land, patterns of animal travel and poteniall increases animal harassment potentials.

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.

yes. I think that all areas should be withdrawn.

all areas shoudl be removed from new mineral and oil and gas activities

Yes, I support the withdrawal of large portions of the watershed from new oil, gas and mineral activities.

All the areas should be removed from any further activities. Clean air and water are a necessity for the survival of the earth.

All of it.

Only truly relevant First Nation lands of significants. Examples of these are religious sites or fish or hunting camps. This withdrawal would have to be very restricted in size.

areas presently designated for withdrawal should remain so.

No.

Yes, see above.

every single area should be withdrawn from mineral and oil activities

There should be no new oil and gas extraction in the Peel watershed. It is fundamentally incompatible with preservation of the Peel, and directly undermines the tourism appeal of the watershed and neighboring Tombstone Mountains.

All regions should be withdrawn.

Yes.

Yes. As per above the current IMA's in the plan should be SMAs with a new analysis of best use that excludes mineral, oil and gas exploration and development.

No, but perhaps small high value areas such as estuaries etc. may be considered upon a careful, scientific, fact based review.

As requested by the First Nations, all of the region should be withdrawn from mineral and oil and gas activities.

No new mineral, oil or gas activities should be allowed in the whole of the Peel watershed

Yes, the whole watershed.

I don't approve of any oil and gas activities at all. With all the recent oil spills, it seems to me that oil and gas company are pretty careless in the way they expoit and careless about the environment, and sloppy about investing in safe equipment and precautionary measures to prevent oil catastrophies. Regarding region being SMAs I feel that area #5, which is surrounded by several SMAs should also be an SMA because anything goes wrong in that area will affect all other SMAs surrounding it.

I don't approve of any oil and gas activities at all. With all the recent oil spills, it seems to me that oil and gas company are pretty careless in the way they expoit and careless about the environment, and sloppy about investing in safe equipment and precautionary measures to prevent oil catastrophies. Regarding region being SMAs I feel that area #5, which is surrounded by several SMAs should also be an SMA because anything goes wrong in that area will affect all other SMAs surrounding it.

I think there should be 100% protection from new oil and mineral development in this region. My understanding is that Yukon First Nations are asking for this 100% protection and I think their request should be respected.

The entire watershed should be withdrawn from further staking.

Yes, all of it. Mineral extraction is NOT the best possible use of this land. In fact, it is the worst.

All areas within the Peel watershed should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities.

The entire region should be free from all mineral or oil and gas activities.

The entire area, according to any logical sence, had to be withdrawn from staking when this land use process began. Don't ruin this area forever for another stupid boom and bust cycle that will make a bunch of outsiders rich.

Yes, the entire watershed should be protected from new mineral and oil and gas activities. I believe that protecting the entire watershed from industrial use will benefit everyone in the Yukon and beyond. There is no way to guarantee that the waters and wildlife of this area would not be negatively impacted by exploration or industrial activities in the future. Areas along the Dempster that are currently slotted as IMAs also overlap possible caribou habitat: I believe this is unacceptable.

Yes, the whole watershed. The whole Peel watershed should be free from mineral, oil and gas activities even if that means to cancel existing claims.

yes - the entire region

All of them. There is much more gold above the ground than anybody ever will find digging for it out there, - if you can see it.

No I do not believe the majority of the areas within the region should be withdrawn. There may be a select number that are excluded from new exploration and development, however the exclusion of such a large area is reckless to the Yukon's economy.

I'm trying to reconcile the idea that 80.6% of the area is supposedly protected in "SMA's" from future exploration while "existing oil and gas and mineral tenures may remain, subject to certain conditions of operation." Essentially, they are NOT withdrawn from exploration. It's a ll a matter for future interpretation what can and can't be done.

Yes - at least all of the SMAs identified, and possibly some of the IMAs.

I believe all IMA should be withdrawn from new mineral or oil and gas activities. I believe these activities should not be permitted anywhere within the Peel Watershed.

100% of the area should be off limits to any form of development, mineral or oil and gas activities. The Peel Watershed is a prestine environment that should be protected for future generations to enjoy. Any development or road access will result in eventual destruction of this prestine habitat.

I think you need to use the system already in place (YESAB) to examine things that might occur case by case.

All areas should be withdrawn. The region should be completely protected for its ecological value. As time progresses and the shortages of water and declines in biodiversity worldwide become more acute, the value of the Peel will grow exponentially if it is protected now from new mineral or oil and gas activities.

The entire watershed should be withdrawn from new mineral and oil and gas activities. They should have been withdrawn when the planning started in 2003.

all

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

see previous response

The Recommended Plan's SMAs are the areas where withdrawal should occur.

All the areas should be protected.

Up to the First Nations to negotiate their most important areas.

See response to first question.

All areas should be withdrawn. Industrial activity destroys wilderness forever.

The entire region.

All of the IMAs as above.

The entire watershed of non-renewable industrial activity.

100% protection means withdrawing the entire watershed from mineral development.

ALL OF IT!!!

Even if I have to say that a hundred times, the whole watershed should be protected from mineral, oil and gas activities. Therefore, there should be NO Integrated Management Areas in the Peel watershed. Existing claims should be canceled.

the entire Peel watershed Planning area

All the areas should be protected

I have no suggestion of where these activities should occur except, not in the Peel Watershed.

All the Peel Planning Region should be withdrawn from mineral and oil and gas activities. I recognize that we need to balance conservation and human use of an area, and that is why 100% of the Peel land use plan should should be kept as a wilderness area with a complete land withdrawal. We need to consider reducing our consumption patterns before opening new places for exploration.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some very pristine, unique environments in the area however those should be evaluated on a case by case consideration and if they are to be protected then it should be no one allowed access. Eco-tourism is not pristine in their methodology of land use so they should be under the same scrutiny as mining exploration and industry.

all

See previous responses

Mineral, oil and gas activities are not compatible with unspoiled wilderness.

Neither Canada nor Yukon will benefit in the long term from resource extraction in this area. Current mining practices take the resource from the land, put the profits in the hands of outside investors and leave the tax payers to clean up the mess and take care of the unemployed miners.

see above

I think that the long term damages to society from mining, oil and gas activities are devastating. We have landfills full of precious metals and minerals - and yet we continue to systematically mine virgin landscapes. As a society, our addiction to oil is causing tremendous damage to ecological systems, and we need to fundamentally change the way we meet our energy needs. I only support development that is building systems that will function over the long term - without requiring more and more development over time. The organizations that want to develop this land should be asked some tough questions. How much are they investing in metal recycling and reclamation? What are some sources of metal within society that they could mine / refine / recapture and use? How are they contributing to building clean, renewable and sustainable energy systems?

If it is not contributing to building a sustainable future, then I do not support any development of this land. The sooner we invest our resources into creating sustainable systems, the more chance we have of surviving (and thriving) over the long term. The Peel watershed is a special place - and I would like to see the vision for sustainable development in the region extend to questioning the very purpose of any development that takes place. With firm policies regarding the long term sustainability of any development, both within the watershed, and within the larger systems that this development is part of.

to protect the widllife and plant species that exist in the peel region, there ate almost no more places like it in canada that have been undisturbed.

Mineral and oil and gas activities are incompatible with wilderness. The Peel watershed currently supports a whole suite of viable economic, recreational, and cultural activities and services that depend on wilderness (subsistence food resources, wilderness tourism, guide-outfitting, carbon storage, camps on the land). These activities are sustainable and viable within existing and proposed management under the Plan. The wilderness character of the Peel is a central pillar for the broader tourism industry in Yukon. There are many other regions within Yukon where viable mineral developments can occur; they should not occur everywhere. The Plan goes a long way to supporting the continuation of oil and gas exploration and development within high potential areas that generally fall in the IMAs.

Our life depends on it. Our children's lives depend on it. We can not compromise our future.

They would harm the environment in a place where recovery could take centuries and, in some cases, not be possible at all.

If there is truly relevance, we should listen and do what we can to accomodate. Having said that, I don't expect them to go out and surround existing mineral sites. It needs to bonifide.

The Peel is not economical for mining development and likely never will be. Further exploration there is pointless. Oil and gas exploration and development have a tendency to expand geometrically in an area. The neighbouring Arctic Refuge has been withdrawn because the impacts of such activities have an unpredicatable cumulative effect - the same should be done for the Peel.

I support the withdrawal of these areas from mineral or oil and gas activities both because of the negative impact of these activities themselves on the ecosystem and because they typically open up the area to further degradation (e.g., by facilitating ATV access).

Mineral, oil and gas activities are not compatible with unspoiled wilderness and guarantee the extirpation of grizzlies and caribou and other species who need large tracts of wilderness to survive. Mining practices and poor government oversight result in public land being destroyed for quick profits for investors while ordinary Canadian taxpayers are left with long term pollution, destruction of the wilderness and unemployed workers. We need truly sustainable development, not more of the failed policies of the past. Protect the entire Peel.

Currently, the Yukon maintains that mineral extraction is legally the primary use of land. By removing an area like the Peel from staking and development we are ensuring that a portion of our territory will not be open to these activities. The vast majority of the territory is still open to non-renewable development, and we need to begin to develop a balance between the interests of these developers and future generations. Current development of non-renewable resources robs future generations of opportunity, and we need to work to wean ourselves off of these substances, and sourcing our current needs for minerals to existing waste, instead of increasing the yield from new sources.

The main reason is the protection of the complete watershed from the irreversible impacts of exploration and development. There are two types of environmental damage - slow/incremental/ small impacts and sudden/catastrophic impacts. Mining and oil and gas exploration and development have caused the slow and incremental impacts to some extent already. All the environmental permitting and good intentions for prevention cannot stop the inevitable failure of people and their systems.

Because non-renewable resource activity does not belong in a protected area.

Because as we have seen in the last few years, there are more and more catastrophies with oil and gas development and companies don't want to seriously invest in equipment safe for the environment. Mineral companies have left messes in every part of the Yukon and there is no monitoring by the government of activities on the land to enforce regulations.

The Peel watersheed is too valuable to be the site of mining or oil and gas activithy.

Mineral extraction overrides all other values, be they ecological or cultural. They cannot be mitigated or compensated for.

I feel the area needs full protection from these activities because of its pristine and ecologically sensitive qualities. There have been enough examples of contaminated and abandoned industrial sites across the Yukon to warrant ensuring that the same would not and could not happen in the Peel watershed.

Mineral and oil and gas activities are not compatible with wilderness, wildlife, biodiversity, recreational, and traditional values

This area equates incredible wealth to all Yukoners. It is valuable as a rare intact and prisine watershed. Mineral and oil and gas exploration will compromise this with no lasting return to us. There are lots of places to find gas, but almost no protected watersheds. A fully protected watershed will only increase in value as it becomes rarer. Oil and gas exploration will only become valueless as the resource is exported and sold for private profit with offensively low royalties paid to us. The value of the intact system will never return.

Mining, oil and gas industries have proven that they cannot co-exist with protection of a pristine region. The example of Chevron's mess is a good example. The giant company left oil barrels on the site. Some of those barrels are leaking. This is a proof that exploitation companies are not as environmently strict as they like to say.

Mining leaves an enormous environmental footprint on the land, particularly in fragile northern sub-alpine and tundra landscapes. It means the end of wilderness. In the best case scenario it legacy would be road access to the backcountry, the worst case scenarios can be found in Faro and Yellowknife. There must remain places in this land that can retain their wilderness character for the benefit of all that lives there.

Because wilderness and mining is bad chemistry.

See my answer to the first set of questions. Allowing development of this land for one-time mineral or oil & gas extraction will spoil its ongoing wilderness value. We would be sacrificing long term gain for short term gain.

As stated before, unless the entire watershed is protected, we cannot expect this ecosystem to maintain its integrity for wildlife.

New mineral or oil and gas activities will result detrimental impacts on the traditional, cultural and environment values in this area. The short term benefits from mineral or oil and gas activities do not come close to equaling the long term benefits gained by keeping these activities out of the Peel Watershed.

We cannot mine without damaging the health of water, ecosystems, or wildlife. The same mining companies in Canada commit human rights and environmental atrocities in other countries with more lenient regulations. We need to reduce our consumption patterns and our behavior. We should not mine new places.

I believe the balance between Special Management Areas and Integrated Management Areas is acceptable in this plan. I support the restrictions on new access roads in IMA's. In restricting access roads, only developments that are serious in their undertaking will be able to go ahead. With restricted access to developing new roads, and a plan in place to decommission new roads when their use has ceased, there is a greater chance that areas designated as IMAs will be able to undergo sustainable development well into the future.

It is a crime to lock up these highly mineralized areas from the benefit to future generations of Yukoners.

It was resource extraction and the associated job prospects that brought me to the Yukon and it is those same jobs that will keep my children and grandchildren living and working here. By bending to pressure from international conservation groups and other special interests groups to take more and more land out of the land base for exploration and development, their future may not be in the Yukon.

I came to the Yukon 20 years ago for a job, but eight years later the Federal Government determined that the greater interest of society (cutting the deficit) outweighed my "right" to doing the job I came to the Yukon to do. My choice was simple: I could remain in the Yukon and pursue a different career or I could continue my chosen career in a different part of the country. Some of my fellow employees chose to continue with their career and leave the Yukon, others chose to change their careers and remain in the Yukon. It was not pleasant having to have this choice forced upon us by society, but it was, and it was right that society could make choices that reflect their values. If society determines that no-one may do mineral exploration or extraction in the Peel watershed, (and if, for some reason, this means you can't do it at all in the Yukon - which to me is completely without foundation) then you and your children will have to decide if your desire to work in the mineral industry outweighs your desire to live in the Yukon. The choice is yours and theirs to make.

As for me, I support the recommendations of the Peel Watershed Commission as a bare minimum. I would be happy to see the entire region being protected as fully as possible. The uniqueness of this area, being largely unspoiled and undeveloped, should remain as it is for our children and grandchildren. If we develop the region now, we deprive them of their right to decide what's best for them. There is too little unspoiled land left on the planet for us to waste. When there were millions of buffalo, hunters killed them just for the tongues, leaving the rest to waste. We would be as foolish as those hunters to despoil one of the last unspoiled treasures on this earth for the sake of a couple of mines.

Just as I sympathise with, but reject, the argument that we need mining so our children can work in the Yukon, so do I reject the argument that if this area is protected, mining companies will not want to work in the Yukon. Canadian mining companies work in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela and many other countries that have many more and larger obstacles to mining than the creation of a protected zone in the Yukon. As long as mining companies can make a profit operating somewhere in the Yukon, they will do so.

The argument that free entry is the law and must be continued is also specious. At one time the law prohibited women from owning property, the law prohibited First Nations people from voting and the law permitted people to own slaves. Societies change and laws change with them, laws are not immutable. The laws that permitted slavery and other abuses became outdated and, as far as I'm concerned, so has the law of free entry. The circumstances that, at one time, made it acceptable and perhaps even useful have changed.

Michael Purves
Whitehorse

I am in support of the First Nations and their call to protect the Peel Watershed 100% from Oil, Gas and Mineral Development. Yukon is vast with lots of other areas to utilize for mining purposes. Let's at least keep this part of Yukon untouched.

If u create a WILDLIFE RESERVE , this will help the process of understanding , any MOTORIZE EQUIPMENT OR NOT ELIGIBLE IN THIS AREA .

Much of the "rationale" behind the unnecessary levels of protecion reommended by the Peel Watershed Land Use Plan is based on emotion, particularly hyperbole stating that mining and exploration will be highly destructive to the land. These fears are unfounded, as there is a plethora of regulatory and permitting requirements for any advanced or even mid-tier project. Public companies are strictly monitored by the securities commission that, among others, monitors the environmental conditions of exploration projects.

You will find that the preservation movement will prefer to discredit the mining industry and its proponents, rather than provide factual data on aspects of the Peel. This is because it is a more effective method of influencing public opinion, not unlike negative ads during political campaigns.



Carl Schulze, Whitehorse

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.

Why do we need to develop these areas? How will we ensure that the development pressure stops once the areas designated for development are already mined? How will developing this watershed contribute to building sustainable systems so that we no longer need to systematically develop more and more land? Do we really need the oil, gas and minerals that would be extracted from here? What would they be used for? Who would benefit from this use? Who would be damaged by this use? What power dynamics are at play here? What need would this development fulfill in society? What other ways could this need be met? What if we decided to protect this entire watershed?

It doesn't matter what anyone tells you there is no such thing as low or no impact exploration/development, it all has a big impact, and we end up flipping the bill for cleanup in some way. and there is no such thing as 100% remediation, its just not possible. the only way to have it the same is nto not touch it in the first place.

There is no compromise between the lives and health of everyone and a handful of quick cash jobs.

Yes, industry provides good paying jobs, helps train people to not just survive, but thrive through life. I have lived in Yukon my whole adult life. I worked in Can Tung from 76-86 and still go out there to prospect and hunt on the Yukon side. Game is still there, outfitters are still there and I notice more and more first nation hunters coming into that area to hunt. All of this with a mine near by and exploration all over the area. I catch fish, hunt moose, caribou, bear and sheep. The road, mine, prospecting, hunting, fishing, guiding and trapping all get along. We had many visitors this year at our camp. All friendly and amicable. All having a good hunt as we were having a good year prospecting. THIS PROVES IT CAN BE MULTI USE AND NOT HURT NATURE OR EACH OTHER.

I became a geologist because of my love for the wilderness and passion for the outdoors. I have a BSc and MSc in Earth Sciences. Mining and exploration can and must be done in a responsible manner. There are a lot of unfounded responses that I am reading. Many of the responses that are against mineral and oil and gas activities are highly emotional, defensive reactions without any real solid argument. How about providing some insightful solutions? How about some real facts. True fact, our lives depend on mineral resources. True fact, mineral resources don't just simply exist anywhere in the Yukon. Wouldn't it be ideal if we could simply mine in mud bogs that ecotourists may not find as aesthetically pleasing, or that may not fit the bill of how they define "pristine wilderness"? Complete a proper mineral resources assessment and let's present some real facts and valid arguments for discussion.

All the National Parks and protected areas in North America were protected in the face of opposition from those who wished to exploit them for a quick profit. Yet now in many areas they are the driving force of the entire economy of the region and we celebrate the vision of those who had the vision and courage to protect them. The Peel watershed is a unique resource, more unique than any minerals, gas or oil that may be found there. Protect all of it for the future, don't destroy it incrementally. Industrial development is not compatible with wilderness and so called "mitigation" is only used to make people feel better about destroying that which is priceless.

How is it that a region that draws almost all of its significant economic benefits from mineral exploration can even be considered to be withdrawn from mineral exploration to me is bewildering. Have we gotten that far away from the facts and the realities to what actually happens out here in the bush? I am presently in an exploration camp just outside the proposed Peel area. The only people in the region are mineral exploration people, hunters and guide outfitters who are just packing up for the year. How did all these people get in here ? They drove on an " oil pipeline access road". The hunters drive quads, the guide outfitters bring their horses to the strip and road and they all benefit from the infrastructure. This area has seen exploration for at least 50 years and yet preservationists" consider it pristine- Well then the industry must have done a great job ! Even considering the poor regulations that all industry and people had a generation ago. Keep the area open for all to benefit, not just a few elite, wealthy foreigners.

I commend the Yukon Government putting a land withdrawal in place to prevent further staking while the land use planning process is underway. This should have happened at the start of the process and this should be standard practice for all land use planning processes.

I entirely agree with the above comments about the importance of land being withdawn from staking.

Let us keep all of the Peel Watershed free of any new development and extricate this valuable (almost) wilderness area from current development. The impact of changing weather and climate conditions does not encourage 'steady-as-she-goes' responses.
Oil, gas and mineral resources are not going to disappear if left untouched until we better understand the new Northern circumstances. Protect the Peel -- 100%.

How many mines do we create on this planet, and what do we do when they are all emptied?

Exploration is a stock market game that, at best, creates a short boom and employment for, mostly, outsiders. We want real economics, that will allow wealth and income in perpetuity.

I'm behind First Nations in protecting 100% of the Peel Watershed. We have to save our wilderness areas as the rest of the world is or has destroyed theirs. Those who cry "jobs, jobs", well there are no jobs on a dead planet.

I support the First Nations, and want 100% protection of the Peel Watershed.

Even with full protection of the Peel watershed the vast majority of Yukon is still available for mineral extraction. As it is, the mining industry is doing very well in Yukon. It is not mining that we need to worry about, it is the ongoing invasion and transformation of the few wild places left in this world by man and machine.

Only 100% protection will save the Peel. Despite the mining / oil & gas industries assurances about best practices, accidents happens all the time.

Mining in the Yukon is having a great year despite there being no exploration or mining occurring in the Peel Watershed. I do not believe it to be necessary to have mineral or oil and gas activities inside the Peel Watershed, nor do I support it.