Theme 2: Conservation Focus

Jump to questions

More information
In section 3.3 of the Plan, the types of land use management zones are described in detail. Table 2 on page 19 of the summary Plan describes each LMU and its designation emphasis. Download a PDF of this theme in English or French.

As an overall management approach, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission recommends a “best use” approach to land use within the region, recommending 16 Special Management Areas (SMAs), each with an emphasis on specific values.

The following are areas of emphasis, or “best use”: fish and wildlife, heritage, general environmental protection and watershed management. In applying these emphases, some types of land uses are not permitted.

The Peel region is used by citizens of four First Nations for subsistence harvesting and cultural uses. Types of cultural land uses include: berry picking, collecting medicinal plants, hunting, trapping, education, travel trails, and gathering sites. There are also many areas and sites of heritage importance, which include archeological and paleontological evidence, sites associated with First Nation stories, cabin and fish camp sites, and burial sites.

LMU index map

Questions:
1. Do these categories of emphasis (designations) make sense to you? If not, what categories would you propose?
No, the entire region should be designated as heritage/preservation. This amazing region should be protected for future generations of Canadians. Perhaps the area should be Canada's next National Park
By Al C from Yukon Territory on August 29, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.
I agree with the categories of response, but worry about our capacity to manage off road vehicles as a function of any management plan.
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
The categories do make sense, but I rather see the whole area getting park/heritage status. As much as possible motorized transport should be avoided here.
By Maalamba Health and fitness Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 01, 2010 at 2:28 p.m.
I don't fully understand the subtleties of the differences between the Special management areas. I would prefer a title of Protected area - and then subtitle with a specific focus. I would like to see the names very clearly indicate that no development is allowable, no new staking is happening, and that the area is intended to be only used for renewable and sustainable activities.

I don't like the term Integrated management unit. It sounds like a euphemism - though I do want very strong regulations in place if any land is to be developed, so maybe it is the right term. (I also don't think that any of this land should be developed).

I would like to see the entire planning region designated as a protected area, with no new roads, no mineral, oil or gas development - and an emphasis on sustainable and renewable economic activities.
By Karen from Ontario on September 06, 2010 at 2:01 p.m.
I agree with Bob sharp's commments.
By a concerned Yukoner from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 1:09 a.m.
Yes, these are useful and appropriate categories
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 12:27 p.m.
Total protection of the entire area is necessary to preserve what is there and to ensure the survival of generations to come.
By Andy Lera, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 12, 2010 at 11:22 p.m.
I agree with the categories but worry about ATV's.
By L. Leon from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.
No, because you are leaving industry out of most of the area. Mines are where you find them. Do not restrict access to industry.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
Agree with the categories and emphasis. They are consistent with the goals of the plan and the founding documents, principally the UFA and related agreements. This area is different from the other planning regions in the Yukon - and this is reflected in the emphasis on conservation.
By chet from Yukon Territory on September 16, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
The categories make sense, but I would prefer to see more complete protection.
By Jeremy Baumbach, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 17, 2010 at 6:25 p.m.
By being specific on the type of protection the MLU need, I can see that there has been a lot of discussion and consultation with First Nation and people who are knowledgeable about the landscape and that is very good. However I think that regardless of what we want protection for (fish and wildlife, heritage etc...), the whole of the Peel Watershed needs to be protected against mining, exploration and oil and gas development and left alone to remain as is, untouched.
By Johanne , Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
One Category, complete protection.
By K. Baxter from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 11:32 p.m.
I believe the entire region deserves 100% protection as First Nations have called for. Once you begin to fragment an area and allow industrial development, roads, ATVs and snow machines you guarantee the eventual destruction of the entire ecosystem. The land needs to remain untouched for us and for future generations. Just to know it is there is a source of hope.
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 9:31 a.m.
I agree with the designation of LMUs as they allow for more manageable and specific planning for different areas. That said, I think it is important to recognise that allowing a certain type of access for a certain group at this time will most likely permit for expansion of access in the future. We have not seen examples of government successfully limiting access to a point where minimal environmental damage is caused while maintaining a minimal amount of access to support certain stakeholder groups.
By K Melton from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.
Yes.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.
No, there should just be one overall designation for protection. This would make it much easier to implement and manage.
By Blaine Walden, Walden's Guiding from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
Sort of. It is a bit hard to understand what degree of protection 'integrated management' means. How can one possibly integrate existing ecological and cultural values with industrial activity such as mining and fossil fuel development? Integration in that sense means destroying the surface of the land in order to allow mineral extraction to exist. That isn't integrated management - it's industrial development.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.
I do not support any areas being designated as "Integrated Management Areas", in which industrial activities are permitted. I would have two categories only, ecological reserve and sustainable non-commercial use areas, e.g. hunting, fishing, and gathering.
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.
In the northern part, areas of industrial integration and protection look remarkably fragmented. Continuity of protection is very important.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
No these categories don't make sense. As was said during a consultation meeting, the fish and wildlife LMUs is not THE only places where fish and wildlife are found. The Porcupine caribou herd uses the area marked as Integrated Management Area.
By Marie from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 10:12 p.m.
No, I would like to see 100% of the region be designated as a site for ecological and heritage conservation. Governments should put a great emphasis and effort towards protecting regions such as this for future generations to explore, appreciate and learn from.
By Laura Squires from Ontario on September 30, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
You know everyone usually just focuses on the resourse and fogets that there have been first nations people living of the land for centries before governments came and just took resourses without permission. Most first nations people are lwft out and life goes on for big corperations. Once resourses are gone, corpation disappear as do the promises. But bottom line is that first nations people will be there even through the here after. Question here is First Nations Culture opposed to Corprate Culture.
By Gary from British Columbia on September 30, 2010 at 6:27 p.m.
I understand the different designations, but unfortunately do not agree with them because I feel the entire area should be designated as full protection from extractive industries and road development. Using the precautionary principle, I believe that is you want to protect something you need to protect it 100% to avoid slow erosion of the value being protected. For example, if somebody wanted to buy my house, but I did't want to sell it to them, but to appease them I sold them just one brick. Well, through time if they ask me enough times and each time I appease them with one brick, eventually I will have sold away my home through appeasement......."one brick at a time." Industry and human development has changed the face of the planet, easily visible from space, and it has done not in massive moments of upheaval but rather, one rock.....one tree, one drained pond, one small road at a time. Are there no places which we value enough to say not even one road.......not even 1% left unprotected in unacceptable? The peel is one of the few watersheds left in the world where we actually have a chance to demand 100%.
By Dustin Davis from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:29 p.m.
yes they do
By tony mcdonald from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Yes
By Pippa from Yukon from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 11:50 p.m.
No development. No road access.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
I don't think it's wise for us, with our wealth of natural resources, yet so few that can be considered wilderness, to divide remaining wilderness into management units that are designed to focus on only one aspect of conservation: we know better than that, as there are endless examples of management challenges that we saddle upon ourselves natural spaces where the health of the whole is not considered. e.g. National Parks where the area boundary supports only half the ranges of the grizzly bears that use it, as in Waterton. Why no err on the side of caution, and protect an internationally valuable resource, as a wholistic unit? It can't be done the other way around.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:42 a.m.
It seems like alot of thought went into the creation of the categories of designation. However, taking something that is whole and dissecting it into parts is like taking the human body and trying to separate it into pieces. The human body could not be expected to function properly if it was dissected into pieces. Nor can the Peel Watershed be broken into pieces and expected to still be a viable ecosystem. When we start to break the land into categories, we stop seeing how all of the pieces need each other in order to function. It also becomes easier to negotiate with perhaps 'heritage' or 'fish and wildlife' if those categories are not seen as essential. I believe that the entire watershed needs one category and that category should be 'protection'.
By Yukoner from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 1:52 a.m.
The following categories of emphasis make sense: Fish and Wildlife, Heritage, Protection, Watershed Management.

It is important to identify these values because the Peel Watershed is a vast and complex area. It requires more than one category that emphasizes on protection. The planning Commission did well in identifying the SMA listed above.

The Integrated Management Area DOES NOT make sense. I understand the commission needed to include a designation that would allow for exploration, mining and other industrial activity, but naming it Integrated Management seems to imply that it will manage mining, industry, traditional, cultural and environmental values all within one area. This is not possible.

I do not believe the IMA should exist in this plan however, if it must for the sake of taking all views into perspective, then it should be named what it is: Industrial management Area
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
The integrated Management Areas are habitat for Porcupine caribou and the headwaters of the watershed. I think these areas should be designated as SMAs (conservation areas)
By Marina from Yukon Territory from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 11:25 p.m.
Yes the categories make sense to me. There may need to be adjustments made to the actual designation under certain legislation is the best fit.
By mclean from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:24 a.m.
The categories make sense to me, as far as all worthy of protection..However I feel this approach is too piecemeal, too many designations,, and will not accomplish a goal of preserving the integrity of the entire watershed.. Personally I think it would be far better to protect the entire watershed as Territorial Park. As a park it would protect Fish and Wildlife, watershed as well as heritage values.
By jill pangman from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:47 a.m.
2. What land use activities and uses do you see as appropriate within the LMUs?
Wilderness tourism, first nations' traditional use, limited outfitting.
By Michael Purves, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on August 27, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
all say , again , NO TO ANY MOTORIZE EQUIPMENT ACCES , because this will open the door to other potential destruction of the land . Tx for your understanding..
By lu from Yukon Territory on August 27, 2010 at 8:00 p.m.
Traditional First Nations activities and zero foot print tourism with perhaps a few access points off of the Dempster Highway.
By Al C from Yukon Territory on August 29, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
all
By somebody from on August 30, 2010 at 12:43 a.m.
Wilderness tourism and FN hunting and gathering activities and continued monitoring of the landscape.
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
In the entire watershed, I think that motorized vehicle use should be limited. Appropriate land use activities include: hunting, fishing, wilderness tourism (carried out responsibly and without degrading the land) and other renewable activities that can be carried out in a sustainable and responsible way.
By Karen from Ontario on September 06, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.
only wildernes tourisim/tourisim in the less protected areas
By xistor21 from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 12:33 a.m.
first nations traditional use, minimal impact wilderness tourism, limited motorized activities (ie aircraft access)
By a concerned Yukoner from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 1:11 a.m.
Mineral exploration and development is not appropriate within the SMAs. More detailed management planning for legally designated SMAs will have to address quotas on wilderness visitor and guide-outfitting traffic.
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
Wilderness tourism if it is minimal impact. Traditional FN activities. Designated float plane access points.
By Andy Lera, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 12, 2010 at 11:25 p.m.
I see all Yukoners working and playing together. I see mining exploration that will hopefully lead to mines and good paying jobs. I see potential for oil and gas wells. I see First Nations, recreationists and outfitters all using the land equally, respecting each other. If you are going to ban industry then to have a truly pristine area you will have to ban all users.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
Appropriate land uses are those which have no damaging impact on flora, fauna, or the land itself. To my mind that includes primarily sustainable harvesting and limited and responsible wilderness tourism.
By Jeremy Baumbach, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 17, 2010 at 6:32 p.m.
The only land use activitiy I support is eco-tourism, such as leave no trace camping
By young generation from Sachsen on September 21, 2010 at 5:50 a.m.
I do not support any development of any kind of mining, exploration or oil and gas. Everywhere in the Yukon where there has been mining, there is garbage left behind that doesn't get cleaned up and governments do not enforce regulations that do require clean-up. Mining companies have money to bring equipment they need to mine but never have money to clean-up after themselves when they leave. I support poeple who want to travel the land to experience the beauty of it in a respectul way, I think the F.N. people should be consulted on how this can be done since this is their traditional territories.
By Johanne , Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 6:54 p.m.
Traditional First Nations' use of the land, minimal impact wilderness tourism (canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, photography, etc.) NO motorized access with the exception of some float plane landings and emergency helicopter evacuation in the event of accident or illness.
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
Watershed: activities that promote erosion, exposure of the subsurface, and the potential for polluted runoff should not be permitted. Any camps etc must be held to high standards to prevent pollution of waterbodies.
Fish & Wildlife: harvest management needs to be a priority in these areas to ensure populations are used sustainably, including reporting by all users. Activities that negatively affect habitat should be minimised and access by motorised vehicles carefully limited.
Heritage: FN recommendations should be followed in these areas.
Protection: Harvest and access should be limited.
IMA: I do not support mineral development in these areas. Renewable Resource development should be permitted in consultation with communities and stakeholders.
By K Melton from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 12:18 p.m.
Generally, I think that traditional hunting, fishing, trapping could occur anywhere using current regulations for these activities. Wilderness tourism, big game outfitting should continue where they do not conflict. Other sorts of tourism could possibly be allowed in some areas - access - probably by float plane. No roads, airstrips or other major infrastructure should be allowed.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.
Definitely no non-renewable industrial activities, but more work would need to be done to figure out what other uses would be acceptable.
By Blaine Walden, Walden's Guiding from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
Traditional hunting and fishing and minimal impact wilderness tourism
By Ken Madsen from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
Current levels of traditional harvesting of fauna and flora, managed tourism (hiking, river trips etc.), regulated outfitting, vehicle traffic only along the Dempster, basically anything that does threaten the concept of 100% protection.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 5:46 p.m.
I do not see the use of ATVs as appropriate within the Peel watershed.
By Tomorrow will be too late. from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 9:56 p.m.
well-regulated and sustainable recreation, hunting, fishing, gathering, with strict limits on commercial activities and motorized vehicles; all in specific areas, with ecological integrity and conservation of biological diversity top priority
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.
Areas of hunting and outfitting could be compatible, but no road, railroad, quad trail, etc. access. Keep it old school and low impact.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.
For all LMU’s, I see the following activities as appropriate: traditional harvesting and cultural activities of First Nations, wilderness/backcountry travel opportunities (hiking, canoeing), existing outfitter operations and scientific research.
By David Blakeburn from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 2:32 a.m.
First Nations traditional uses, low-impact ecotourism. Definetely no mineral, oil and gas exploration and exploitation should be allowed.
By Marie from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
wilderness tourism, big game outfitting, There should never be exclusive permits for wilderness tourism as they become financial assests for business. If there isa need to limit access it should be via lottery and anyone who would like to offer trips within the Peel would have equal opportinty
By Trevor Braun from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 12:29 a.m.
Hunting, fishing, controlled wilderness tourism. No ATV use.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 1:22 a.m.
wilderness tourism, big game outfitting, There should never be exclusive permits for wilderness tourism as they become financial assests for business. If there isa need to limit access it should be via lottery and anyone who would like to offer trips within the Peel would have equal opportinty.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 11:08 a.m.
Zero Footprint Tourism aimed at teaching the fundamentals of conservation and land preservation and the traditional First Nations use of land for hunting, gathering, teaching and medicine.
By Laura Squires from Ontario on September 30, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.
Within the Land Management Units (LMUs), the cultural activities that are now allowed should continue to be allowed. These include: hunting, fishing, tourism, and traditional activities. Traditional activities include: berry picking, educational activities, and cultural gatherings. All of these activities have low impacts on the environment and are beneficial to all people.
By MegPol from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
tourism and tradtional use
im guessing that the people that want to mine the peel watershed never went down just for a trip
well i went down with my class a few years ago and i'll say that it was the best trip of my life
By tony mcdonald from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:34 p.m.
I think that the Commission has identified all relevant activities and uses.
By Pippa from Yukon from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 11:51 p.m.
No development. No road access.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
No motorized equipment, no impact/leave no trace activities.
By Yukoner from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 1:53 a.m.
eco-tourism, education,responsible scientific research and traditional activities are the only appropriate activities within these lMUs. These activities are only appropriate if they are done in a manor that does not jeopardize the integrity of the main value associated with the LMU.

Ex: Research being done to monitor the northward migration of Boreal Forest in the Hart River SMA(Fish and Wildlife) but in a manor that does not produce detrimental effects to fish and wildlife
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:32 p.m.
I believe that the peel watershed should be protected from ALL development.
By somebody from Ontario on October 01, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.
I believe that the peel watershed should be protected from ALL development.
By somebody from Ontario on October 01, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
If you are not willing to give equal access to all people who have a vested interest then close it to everyone except First Nations Traditional use with no joint venture for making money.
By KIT from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 7:56 p.m.
3. 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.
By Michael Purves, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on August 27, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
No - The mining industry has shown itself, despite promises to the contrary, to irresponsible and destructive. In addition the road necessary to support mining open the region to stupid people on motorized vehicles that then create more destruction in pristine areas.
By Al C from Yukon Territory on August 29, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.
Yes, the entire region if done correctly and follow proper guidelines.
By somebody from on August 30, 2010 at 12:43 a.m.
No. These aren't compatible.
By george from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
No. These are really conflicting at the landscape level but transportation corridors can and should be used by both.
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
I do not feel that industrial land use is appropriate in this area. I do not think that it is compatible with wilderness tourism, or the long term integrity of the region's wildlife.
By Karen from Ontario on September 06, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
i don't beleive that the two are compatable at all
By xistor21 from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 12:31 a.m.
no
By a concerned Yukoner from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 1:12 a.m.
Industrial development and wilderness tourism are incompatible. The IMAs in the Recommended Plan provide a land base for compatible industrial and non-industrial uses, where non-industrial uses are not wilderness based (e.g., some forms of subsistence food harvesting, road-based and amenity-based tourism).
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
No. Industrial activities will have far reaching impacts.
By Andy Lera, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 12, 2010 at 11:26 p.m.
There are no areas where I feel industry is compatible with non industrial uses.
By L. Leon from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 11:05 a.m.
All areas are compatible with mining, tourism, first nations, recreation, oil and gas and so on.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
Regions bordering the dempster highway should be considered for industrial uses as well as non-industrial.
By chet from Yukon Territory on September 16, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
No.
By Jeremy Baumbach, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 17, 2010 at 6:33 p.m.
You confuse mining with mineral exploration. Total mining in the Yukon is, and unlikely will, cover an area bigger than the present area of the City of Whitehorse. Mineral exploration requires a huge land base and leaves a very small foot print at the end of the day. However, it provides investment, hundreds of jobs for Yukoners, and helps to pay the taxes to keep government agencies working. Kill mineral exploration incentives in the Yukon today, you can expect government layoffs tomorrow.
By Clive Aspinall from Yukon Territory on September 22, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.
I don't think mining should be allowed. As for wilderness tourism, I think there needs to be more discussion on the subject with F.N. so it might be developed without the least disruption possible on the land. I also do not believe in trophy hunting. Hunting should be for subsistance.
By Johanne , Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 6:57 p.m.
No! We have canoed on the Yukon River six times since 1994 (from Whitehorse to Circle,Alaska) with our last trip in 2009. Although enjoyable, it is not wilderness. Each trip we have noticed more development. This is in great contrast to our canoe trip on the Snake in 1997 and other wilderness river we have canoed with friends (Nahanni, Horton, Thelon). Mining and wilderness are not compatible!
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 9:42 a.m.
The IMAs do have the potential to allow for industrial development (renewable resources) to coincide with nonindustrial if the local communities support the effort, however I do not support any industrial development that includes the extraction of non-renewable resources.
By K Melton from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
No. Mining, oil and gas and their foot prints - infrastructure, noise, pollution would completely destroy the reasons for wilderness tourism and big game outfitting.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.
No. Nowhere. These two activities are not compatible in this region.
By Blaine Walden, Walden's Guiding from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
No, the watershed should be left pristine, and the wateshed should be withdrawn from and further mineral staking.
By Ken Madsen from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
No, not really. Industrial and nonindustrial land uses are incompatible. I mean, who goes to Fort McMurray for the fishing or the hiking or the wilderness tourism? They are just not compatible.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.
No. It's a pristine environment. It's a rare bit of untouched land on the planet and it's in our territory. It is our responsibility to protect it all and that means no industrial development in the entire watershed.
By Tomorrow will be too late. from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 9:55 p.m.
no
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.
Hell NO! Go mine in Dawson or Faro. This place is in good shape - leave it that way.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 6:19 p.m.
No. The area should be free from any industrial activities and 100% of the watershed should be protected.
By Marie from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
No.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 1:23 a.m.
All of these regions are compatible. With strict monitoring and regulation industrial activities can coexist with other land uses.
By Jim from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.
NO, any industrial activity in any part of this region would give the impression of leniency and industry will keep trying to lay claim to parts of the region, plus industry activity in one part of the region means all parts are at risk of being affected by pollution, especially since it is obvious that monitoring systems that are in place now are disorganized and negligent.
By Laura Squires from Ontario on September 30, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
I do not believe that there are any industrial activities that would be conducive to safe nonindustrial uses. I think that, no matter how many safety measures are put in place, industrial pursuits cause more harm than good. Although industry such as mining is an important part of Yukon, there are places where the land/environment should not be breached. If we continue to strip the land of its resources with no thought to the future, then we will have no future. Nonindustrial activities such as wilderness tourism is educational and helps people appreciate the landscape, without a negative environmental impact.
By MegPol from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
No, I think the Peel watershed represents a rare and fleeting opportunity to preserve a watershed in its wilderness state and industrial use is not compatible with the unique wilderness tourism values which are available in the Peel watershed.
By Dustin Davis from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:32 p.m.
nope i went to germany and went on a tour of what ever they had for a forest which is only 14km by 14km and there was mines all around it and it was not pretty
By tony mcdonald from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:34 p.m.
No. My goal is to preserve the wilderness of the area. Industrial and nonindustrial uses are not compatible. Any industrial use will compromise the integrity of the ecosystem.
By Craig Nichols from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 9:20 p.m.
No.
By Pippa from Yukon from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 11:51 p.m.
No.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:12 a.m.
No. While mining is a significant part of the history of the Yukon, it is reduce extraction for short term gain, and given that we live in one of the richest, healthiest countries in the world, with a disproportionate allocation of natural resources, I would suggest we have an international responsibility to be leaders in findiing ways of valuing (economy) this landscape that don't require short-term gain via non-renewable extractions.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:46 a.m.
No! There are so many sites in the Yukon that have been used for industrial purposes, and are now industrial waste lands. This cannot be seen as compatible with wilderness tourism.
By Yukoner from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 1:55 a.m.
I can't think of an area in the world where I would want to be participating in "wilderness tourism" and have industrial in the same area. I would not pay or even visit the area (if offered a free trip) if industrial activity is occurring. That would completely ruin the experience for me.

The answer is no.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
No
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 6:50 p.m.
I feel almost all of the area is capable of both industrial (eg mining) and non-industrial (wilderness tourism) land uses are compatible as indicated by the past 110 years of the development in the Yukon.
By KIT from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.
Industrial land uses are not compatible anywhere in the Peel watershed
By Marina from Yukon Territory from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 11:24 p.m.
NO! NONE!! Mining is simply not compatible with wilderness tourism.. The level of mining exploration activity in the Peel watershed up until this past summer has been problematical at times..This is why I, as a wilderness tourism outfitter, have cancelled trips to the wind river due to Cash minerals activities in that vicinity. This is also why you do not see wilderness tour operators taking their guest into the parts of the territory that are being mined or extensively explored.
By jill pangman from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:47 a.m.
no. non-industrial only should be allowed
By sjn from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:57 a.m.
4. How can this Land Use Plan guide the management of both traditional uses and other land uses?
It could best guide the management of this land by inviting the Federal Government to make the area a national park protected against exploitation.
By Al C from Yukon Territory on August 29, 2010 at 12:49 p.m.
Required ongoing consultation. Political and social commitments to the basic underlaying conservation principles.
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
Ongoing meaningful consultation with the First Nations
By Maalamba Health and fitness Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 01, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
ongoing communication/discussion with the First Nations, government, and permitted recreational/wilderness tourism stakeholders
By a concerned Yukoner from Yukon Territory on September 08, 2010 at 1:14 a.m.
The primary way the Plan does this is by identifying zones (LMUs) of particular value for traditional uses, and identifying these as heritage designations or fish and wildlife designations. This zoning provides direction to the legal designations that will need to be attributed to these SMAs, and to the more detailed management planning and operations within these legally designated SMAs. The Plan also recognizes the ongoing need to monitor and control levels of use, traditional and other, through tools such as harvest restrictions and quotas on visitor numbers. However, it is not within the mandate of this Plan to address the details of some of these management issues, and the Plan acknowledges the jurisdiction of other agencies (e.g. the Porcupine Caribou Management Board; YESAB).
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
Consult with First Nations, actually listen to them and do what they are telling us and protect 100% of the area. Doing so might be a first for government but is the right thing to do.
By Andy Lera, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 12, 2010 at 11:29 p.m.
There can't be a cast in concrete management plan. It should be administered by the First Nations, and the Federal Government. I'd like to see it designated an International Heritage Site.
By L. Leon from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 11:07 a.m.
The plan can include all persons and industry. If there are truly sacred sites and traditional fishing places then we can stay back from them within reason.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
This is the crux of planning - keeping the document off the shelf. The Parties could convene and annual review of activities in the region compared to guidelines in the plan. YESAB must render this plan in to a working document for staff and insert automatic links between it and any proposed human uses for the area. Traditional uses should also be vetted through YESAB as fair play - in terms of erecting structures and buidling/renewing trails etc. For the past 10 years Selkirk First Nation has held a May Gathering where everyone comes to discuss the status of wildlife in their traditional territory. The Parties should host an annual or biennial Peel gathering for everyone to attend, learn and discuss the management of the area. An annual state of the Peel (with report card) should be produced and presentations made to all relevant bodies FNs, YFWMB, RRCs.
By chet from Yukon Territory on September 16, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.
First of all, I hope this land use Plan will not be put on the shelf to collect dust. I commend the hard work that went into it and I hope it will be taken seriously. Although it does not go as far as recommending 100% protection, it is a good working document. From this point, I think the only thing the Plan could ask for is 100% protection or for the Peel Watershed to be officially designated as Heritage site or National Park. That in my opinion would make it truly protected whether it be at 80% or 100%. I also think that if it goes as is, the plan could guide the management by proposing ways to monitor and enforce regulations because this is the key to managing any kind of development.
By Johanne , Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 7:10 p.m.
Let the historic wisdom of the first nation's people guide the traditional uses and other land uses through the principle of conservation for future generations and accept the only truly viable recommendation - 100% protection.
By K. Baxter from Yukon Territory on September 23, 2010 at 11:40 p.m.
Consult with First Nations and protect 100% of the landscape. Canada's newest National Park was developed in consultation with First Nations and allows for traditional activities. I would like to see the entire region become a National Park to ensure its protection for all time.
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.
By limiting the type of access and use for different areas, and giving legal grounds for the priority of certain uses/users, including future generations.
By K Melton from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
Having a plan that has a precautionary principal as a key part can guide all land uses that I see appropriate as mentioned above .
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.
If the Land Use Plan is a guide, it should respect the concept of 80% protection. If the Land Use Plan is to reflect the concerns being heard during the current round of consultations, it should be a guide to 100% protection.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
A balance must be established between traditional uses by natives and use by non-natives.
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:08 p.m.
With ecological (thus economic) sustainability as the foremost consideration.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 6:20 p.m.
Ask the First Nations involved about how they want to see non-industrial activities going on in the watershed. As I said earlier, no industrial activities should take place in the watershed.
By Marie from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
Provides a framework for further discussions.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 1:41 a.m.
what bob scott said
it doesent matter how far away from any sacred place or fishing spots it will eventually come into all the places that we as natives use all year
it might not be in this generation but it will destroy the tradtional life for our next generation
By tony mcdonald from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:38 p.m.
The great thing about traditional land use ( First Nations) is that it does not typically involve intense modification of the land. First Nation traditional uses of the land do not negatively impact the wilderness tourism industry in my opinion. Wilderness tourism and First Nation tradition land use can co-exist quite handily. My experience with tourists indicates that many are keenly interested in traditional lifestyles and harvesting practices of First Nations People and I believe if First Nations so desired, there is great potential for them to develop their own tourism products and industry. However, I don't think that extractive industries and First Nation traditional uses are compatible and certainly the international attraction of the Peel Watershed will be dramatically and irreversibly damaged if extractive industry is allowed, even in 20 % of the area. Make it 100% protected.....make it a Park......make it something.....but don't give it away 20% at a time!
By Dustin Davis from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:46 p.m.
Man has existed in the Yukon ecosystem for about 11,000 years. We have not have not had motorized access for any more than 100 years, yet the impact is staggering. Allow traditional uses by all means, as long as they are not aided by too much modern technology. Completely eliminate industrial uses in the area so that one area actually exists where traditional cativities can occur.
By Craig Nichols from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 9:27 p.m.
The Plan speaks for itself.
By Pippa from Yukon from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 11:52 p.m.
Grant National Park protection status.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:13 a.m.
It has the potential to be a strong statement of how highly we in the Yukon value the Peel's wealth of natural resources as a locally, nationally, and internationally significant wilderness. The land use plan can collaborate with and build from the Agreements with first Nations, in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. If we use this document to assert this vision, then we will be caring for the land that we rely on for our survival, and the generations after us, who will have much less nature and wilderness to protect, will thank us for our foresight.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:53 a.m.
A co-management team with First Nations, such as the type of collaborative team represented by First Nations and parks staff that used manages Nahanni National Park.
By Yukoner from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 1:57 a.m.
By protecting the Peel Watershed from and roads and industrial activity so that traditional and sustainable land uses can occur in the area for generations.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.
If you are unwilling to give equal opportunity to all stakeholders then only First Nations traditional use (no joint ventures) should be allowed. Close the area completely or make it accessible, it's not a them or us situation - it's democracy or no democracy.
By KIT from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 7:59 p.m.
Traditional uses involve hunting.. Hunting practices are usually not compatible with wilderness tourism (except by hunting tourists with the Outfitters). Fortunately this plan does not allow for new road development into the watershed,as roads exacerabate this conflict.. The Dempster is a good example..The Dempster corridor needs to be managed so that it accommodates wildlife viewers. The decimation of caribou along the highway is a prime example of how roads lead to detrimental hunting pressures.. Fortunately the lack of roads into the vast majority of this watershed decreases the potential for conflict between traditional users and recreators/tourism clients.. A management plan for a protected area can delineate appropriate limits for the outfitters... Personally I feel that certain species of wildlife are being overhiunetd by some of the outfitters in the region. And certian outfitters a remor scrupulous that others. Both hunting outfitting and wilderness tourism can have deleterious effects on wildlife populations or on the quality of the wilderness experience of travellers in the watershed if these industries not regulated and managed. A management plan can set the guidelines for such regulation.
By jill pangman from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:47 a.m.
5. Do you have any other comments on this topic?
With over 80% of the Yukon Territory already accessible to exploration and mining, I feel that the entire Peel watershed should be protected and maintained as an undeveloped natural habitat.
By Mary McAvoy from Yukon Territory on September 06, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
We have such a small amount of unspoiled wilderness in the world that it is important for the life of the planet to protect what we have left rather than polluting it like what has been done in other places.
By Andy Lera, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 12, 2010 at 11:30 p.m.
Many First Nations and Yukoners suffer with addictions to alcohol and drugs. Jobs create opportunity and self respect. There is nothing more satisfying than working hard, earining a good pay cheque and providing a good living for your family.
If you sit around unemployed you spiral down, get depressed, start drinking or using drugs and eventually end up in trouble with the law. This results in a strain on our already costly Health and Social Services and Justice Systems. I don't think any other user group you are putting forward can match the real wealth and jobs that mining creates. To me, this is a good part of the root cause for our system problems in Yukon and the best way to eradicate them.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 4:24 p.m.
Conservation should be held as paramoount in this area for the present but be subject to review in the natural life history of the plan and its successors - every generation must be able to reconsider all such matters for itself.
By chet from Yukon Territory on September 16, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.
I am concerned that any industrial exploration and development in this area has the potential to become the thin edge of the wedge; for example, roads for industrial access are then used for other motorized access with the risk (likelihood) of further environmental degradation.
By Jeremy Baumbach, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 17, 2010 at 6:39 p.m.
There are so many other areas of the Yukon open to industrial development. I believe that the entire Peel watershed should be protected and maintained as an intact ecosystem.
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 9:49 a.m.
It is time to listen to the wishes of the First Nations' whose traditional territories lie within this region. They request that 100% of the Peel Watershed be protected and this should be done, for the sake of the ecosystem, ourselves and future generations.
By concerned Yukoner from Yukon Territory on September 25, 2010 at 7:32 p.m.
Implementation is critical. A management plan developed by First Nations, the government and the public needs to be worked out to ensure the goals of protection are achieved.
By Blaine Walden, Walden's Guiding from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
The Peel watershed should be withdrawn from any further mineral staking immediately.
By Ken Madsen from Yukon Territory on September 27, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
We have for the most part, destroyed our natural heritage on this planet, and created unsustainable industrial societies. The Peel Watershed in an opportunity to maintain ecological integrity and sustainable use.
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
Mining of any sort anywhere in this area is a "worst use" approach. Don't do it - it's too far out there to make money anyway, and I'm sick of paying taxes to subsidize mining exploration and speculative gimmicks on the stock market.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 6:27 p.m.
If we here in the Yukon cannot protect the Peel Watershed, we cannot expect anybody anywhere to protect anything
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 1:38 a.m.
the peel river watershed is one of the few untouched places in canada maybe even in the world so we have to protect it not only for us but all the childern that are growing up right now and for the elders that have there life stories from growing up in the watershed region
as i said in the comments above this was the best trip i have ever been on going down the snake river
By tony mcdonald from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
I believe the Peel Watershed region should be entirely considered a protected area. No mining or industrial activity should take place in that region.
By JenniferBreault from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.
Think stewardship, think foresight, think smart.
By somebody from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:14 a.m.
Mining is not an activity that can co-exists with environment conservation. It hasn't worked in ecosystems that are among the most productive and diverse on the planet. It certainly wouldn't work in the harsh climatic and pedological conditions that exist here in the Yukon.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:42 p.m.
A conservation focus is appropriate for this region at this time. Government currently has limited ability and few tools to manage development other than by the status quo where free entry mining exists. There really is no point to a land use plan if the area is open to all forms of development.
By mclean from Yukon Territory on October 02, 2010 at 1:28 a.m.