No development whatsoever. The land should be free of all mining, oil and gas industries. Also these deposits are Canadian and should be held in reserve for future generations whereas they might develop better techniques of extraction.

I support the protection of the whole Peel Watershed and believe the area should be left alone.

The Peel Watershed needs to be 100% protected from all industrial development. There are not many areas left in Canada that haven't been touched by industry. Let's protect the Peel.

I support the plan of protecting at least 80% of the Peel Watershed, but this does not go far enough; the entire watershed must be protected. In the last thirty years we have seen how overuse has destroyed the cod fishery off the east coast and, indeed, most of the major fisheries of the world. We have also seen the eradication of nearly all the old growth forests on the west coast. In the last 100 years we eliminated the bison from the prairies and the passenger pigeons from the skies. Such a large area of untouched wilderness, the Peel River watershed, is unique in the world and we owe it to ourselves and future generations to preserve it as wild and untouched as it is. When bison were plentiful we wiped them out for little more than their tongues and in a short while we had eliminated all but a very few of them. Whole ecosystems were changed, the way of life of first nations peoples were destroyed and we are all the poorer for it. Likewise, the destruction of the cod destroyed a way of life for the people of the east coast. We are rapidly approaching that point with respect to untouched wilderness; there is very little unspoiled wilderness on this planet of this size, remoteness, and uniqueness. This is the last huge herd of bison, the last school of cod, the last flock passenger pigeons. We cannot allow it to be destroyed too.

I support the protection measures the plan lays out. This is a unique area whose value is still to be fully revealed. Our kids and grandkids will profit from this area in the future if the area is protected now.

I am in favor of 100% protection of the Peel watershed with no industrial development and no roads other than the Dempster Highway and any roads deemed appropriate for its protection.

NO DEVELOPMENT WHAT SO EVER. THIS PRISTINE WILDERNESS AREA NEEDS TO BE LEFT AS IS!!!!!

100% protection. With all that has been developed, it gives people comfort to know there are places like the Peel Region that are still wilderness. To destroy this area with roads and development would be a shame. I would like to visit the Peel someday, but not if it has nothing to offer except more development.

I do not support any of it. We have done quite alright, in My opinion, without a land plan all these years.Let the land be open to all as it has been . If you choose to select certain areas and not allow any developement, or activity you choke off man and his ability to grow and expand his knowledge. The earth in My opinion is one huge living organism. All ecosystems work together. All as one. Not in small little pockets. When North America was under glaciation, I would assume no lived on the ice. But now we have climate change which gave us a place to live and die. It still can be this way, or should I say is this way.What You are saying in the land plan is that it is to be what You have written. I say let the land be as it is.Let those who want to use it, use it.Those that do not want to do not have to.The earth has taken care of itself all these years. But that does not mean we leave out common sense.If there is abetter way to mine, than it should be done. If there is a better way operate a tour operation than do it. Now a final few words.We have common sense . Let this prevail, instead of laws.Don Hrehirchek

I support the creation of protected areas. I support keeping the land road free. I support banning new mineral claims in the area. I support the strong focus on protection, and the goal of sustaining social and ecological systems over the long term.

I support all parts that are pro protection

I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. We as a society have been very poor guardians of our planet. We have an opportunity to protect an entire watershed and be leaders in responsible management of our lands. I am not anti-industrial development, however I feel that there are places that should have 100% protection while we allow development to occur in other areas. This allows for certainty as industry knows which areas are available for resource extraction and which are not. We have an opportunity to show foresight and speak out for those that do not have a voice in the process (animals, plants...). humans have damaged many entire ecosystems leaving the plants, animals and human inhabitants to suffer.

The area should have been withdrawn from staking during the planning process as the end result was a staking frenzy in areas that are not even economically feasible for industrial use. Ther are not many remaining large tracts of "wilderness" or intact ecosystems left. Let the Peel watershed be one of them.

I support nearly all components of the Recommended Plan, including the strong conservation emphasis, the land use zoning and designation scheme, and the strong resrictions on mineral and oil and gas developments (wilderness conservation is incompatible with mineral development).

Your question seems to limit the range of response. In order to "be specific" as you request I have to be able to quote chapter and verse from a huge document that is read, I imagine, in large part by people who are paid to read it, in lesser part by people whose livelihood it will affect, and by some interested individuals with the necessary skills who are able to make the time.

I am not one of those who can "be specific", and I imagine that allows you to dismiss my comments as peripheral to your mandate, if you wish.

I hope I'm wrong, because I'm going to repeat what everyone else in this forum has said so far in one way or another: do not fulfill your mandate.

You say "The objective of regional land use planning is to provide guidance for the integrated management of lands and resources in order to ensure sustainable development and sound environmental stewardship while minimizing land use conflicts."

I say: We have proven time and again - locally and globally - that we can not foresee all the consequences of our attempts to manage lands and resources. On a purely financial basis here in the Yukon the taxpayers of Canada are footing the bill for over a half a billion dollars in on-going charges for the Faro mine, BYG, Clinton Creek, to mention a few of the more recent failures of miners to clean up after themselves. That is only the financial side of things. The environmental costs are still to be determined.

We have demonstrated that we cannot, despite our best intentions, guarantee that we can "ensure sustainable development and sound environmental stewardship". That puts you in an uncomfortable position, I think, given that this is one of the last vast tracts of relatively untouched wilderness on the planet. You can carry on inserting the thin edge of the development wedge into this area, as though we haven't learned anything from our past mistakes, or you can protect this unique area.

I support traditional uses of the Peel by the First Nations for whom it is a part of their traditional Territory. I support responsible tourism where impact to the environment is minimal. Hiking and canoeing can be accommodated but not ATV's and the like.

The Peel River Watershed.

1. proposed division of the planning region into SMAs and IMAs
2. subregional plan for the dempster
3. declassification of the wind river trail
4. comprehensive water management plan - special attention to oglivie and blackstone
5. goals of the plan as stated on page 1-7

None. The Yukon already has 14.5% of its territory removed from the mineral land base. Without modification, this plan will increase that to 25.8%. Mining brings high-paying jobs and tax revenues with a relatively small environmental footprint. Exploration, which causes negligible environmental impact, needs a large landbase to focus down to where an economic deposit could lie hidden. Exploration has been done in the Peel for 60 years and it is still pristine - why not let it carry on and still be pristine. And if an economic deposit is found, Yukon has the environmental review processes in place to determine whether it can become a mine responsibly or not.

no development in any of the area, I recently had the opportunity to spend a weekend at heart lake, it as absolutely breath taking. If any development takes place it will no longer be a peaceful and calming place. It need to remain as is.

I am generally supportive of the Plan, but would prefer to see 100% protection for this area.

I support a minimum development in the watershed and a maximum of conservation (at least 80%). Permitted staking, exploration and development within the Peel Watershed while this process is being completed totally undermines the effort and value of the planning commission process. These activities need to stop.

I applaud and support Chief Taylor and Chief Mervyn for having the foresight to protect and conserve this area. The Yukon Government and industry representatives cannot overlook the intent made by the local Peel Watershed self governing First Nations.

For the future and well being of the Yukon, Canada and the World, The Peel Watershed needs protection!

100% protection from development (including any roads) for this magnificent watershed.

i support saving the peel river water shed %100, this is our land and we dont need another government telling us what to do, they damaged us the dont need them to damage more! talk abt salt on a wound! havent they taken enough, this is pure land, only touched by our ancestors and our elders! as gwichin people it would damage our way of life and our spiritual beings will not be.

I support traditional uses of the Peel by the First Nations for whom it is a part of their traditional Territory. I support responsible tourism where impact to the environment is minimal. Hiking and canoeing can be accommodated but not ATV's and the like. The whole region should be protected. It is unique...

this breathe-taking wilderness in the Peel Watershed must be preserved! In my eyes, there is no single part, the whole Waterhed must be seen as one part and has to be protected.

I also support the protection of the entire area. You Canadians should be proud of this amazing piece of nature that is left there!!!!! having spent 3 weeks with a group of young people in Canada I am pretty sure that this is one of the most valuable landscapes in the world- but not if it is going to be destroyed. Therefore I think 100% should be saved.

It is important that we don't left alone The Peel Watershed. It must not use for industry and oil production

I am a student from Germany - I was in this area in line with a conservation expedition in year 2008. So I saw this beautiful landscape and intact nature. This was a very impressive experience for me.
Therefore I hope that this land will be free of mining and other industries - 100%!
This untouched nature is an important present for canada and the whool world.

I agree with the First Nations in 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. It is such a beautiful, wild and amazing place that it should be left alone. This area will be worth more to the Yukon if it stays pristine.

I support protection of the watershed. It is such a unique area on our planet, a great big ecosystem hardly touched by people. Think what a great opportunity it will be for people to travel to this area 200 years from now, if we preserve it as is.

The area for protection is too large. Cut back by 60%

Without having been in the region, I trust that the LMU and more specifically the SMA have been selected with the knowledge of the people who have lived, been raised up and travelled the area. I support the SMA

The Peel Watershed Planning Commission has undertaken a huge task but they do not go far enough. I support the First Nations call for 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. This area is incompatible with any mining or oil or gas exploration or other industrial development. The explosion of mining claims since the process began speaks volumes to the greed of corporations and the ongoing support of short term non-renewable resource development that the current Yukon Government courts. The moratorium on further staking must be extended. Hopefully the costs of mineral extraction by air will be prohibitive to further development.

I support 100% protection.

I support complete protection of the Peel Watershed from any road building, exploration for mining, gas or oil, industrial development. This is an intact wilderness ecosystem and needs to remain that way.

I support the focus on protection in this plan, and believe it could go further. While I understand the desire for economic opportunities I do not think these need to be linked only to mineral activities, and I do not think mining can ever be a 'sustainable' development. I support the efforts of the the commission to seek all views, and the focus on First Nations activities within the area and their perspectives. I support the assumption that the wilderness character of the area is essential to the majority of renewable resource development opportunities and believe this should entail more protection for the region. Mineral wealth provides a short-term, one-time gain for a small number of people, often non-residents; with clean-up often left for local governments to manage. I therefore support the high level of proposed protection and believe it should increase.

I originally supported the recommended plan fully, but I have been convinced by the First Nations affected that 100% protection from industrial development and the supporting infrastructure is the only way to ensure the 'conservative' and precautionary principals are upheld. First Nations citizens and the resources in their tradtional areas have already been insulted by " industrial development" ie exploration infrastructure and debris at Caribou Creek, and the Crest Deposit, tote roads and trails in the Hart and Wind and Bonnnet Plume valley over traplines, and hunting areas. Even though we all should be outraged as Yukon citizens that some companies (and of course the people who work for these companies) allow environmental degredation, First Nations citizens have, and will feel the direct impacts if there is, say, waste stream from a uranium deposit, an oil pipeline break or any other disaster affecting the water or lands. Despite the best currently available environmental engineering, spills and other disasters do occur very regularly in mining and oil and gas industries. To protect the Peel watershed it has to be done completely.

I am in full agreement with First Nations and other groups that call for 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. Such a rare and wild area that is entrusted to our decision making calls for careful, thoughtful, sensitive and responsible choices for the well being of this place and all who live there. With countless examples of such places, peoples and living things that have disappeared so rapidly and irreversibly around the world, I believe it is our full responsibility to ensure that the Peel Watershed remains intact and pristine.

I support 100 percent protection of the Peel Watershed, with no road development and no resource extraction industries. Anything less would be unacceptable in protecting this unique Yukon ecosystem that will continue to attract world wide visitors to the Yukon for generations to come.

We support the emphasis on protection in the Peel. Although we are pleased to see 80 per cent recommended for protection, we think it should be 100 per cent. We totally support the recommendation that no more roads be allowed and that the Wind River Trail be stripped of its status as a guaranteed right-of-way. We also think the existing mineral claims, iron leases, coal permits and oil/gas dispositions should be extinguished.

There should be no development of the whole Peel watershed. No mining, mineral exploitation, oil exploration, road building etc should be allowed. The only human use allowed should be traditional First Nation activites and responsible low-impact non-commercial tourism such as hiking and canoeing.

I agree with our Yukon First Nations, the Peel Watershed needs to be 100% protected.

I am in favor of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.

I support protection of the Peel watershed against industrial activity.

I am in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.

# you are in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.


# you support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection.
#you value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and you want it to remain this way.

# you think all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

The protection of the watershed and that there shall be no surface access allowed except in the Dempster Highway corridor.

THAT AT LEAST 80% OF THE WATERSHED BE PROTECTED WITH NO SURFACE ACCESS BE ALLOWED.

Support: Protection of the environment from industrial activities.

The plan calls for 80% protection. Now it appears that some of the affected FN governments are calling for 100% protection - I fully support this position.

I support the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use plan in general. If anything, I would like to see 100% of the watershed protected from industrial development.

I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed and do not support the proposed land use plan.

I support a minimum of 80% of the Peel Watershed to be protected from industrial development.

I believe that the Peel Watershed deserves to be protected 100%. We already have a resource that is precious and envied by the world: pristine wilderness is at a premium. Let's keep this resource safe and develop it as an ecotourism destination. These natural wilderness areas will be more and more in demand as other areas become more developed. Then we will always have it for the future unchanged.

Leave it alone!!

I would support 80% protection if that is all that is possible, but 100% protection should be the goal. We have many examples of reaching a compromise between the forces of environmental protection and development. They almost always work out to be short term profits for developers and long-term damage to the environment. The cleanest methods ever devised for mining and other
extractive industries still leave lasting scars on the earth long after they take their decade or two of profits then leave. If there were some dire need for the natural resources located there, then maybe a case for compromise for compromise could be made. However, a few jobs and minor economic gains do not justify any road development or extractive development. And finally, the First Nations people who live there don't want the development. For once, it would be nice to actually treat their wishes seriously,
especially since it will also profit us long-term by preserving a true wilderness area - something almost non-existent today.

I am in favor of 100% Protection of the Peel Watershed.

I support complete protection of the Peel watershed

I support full protection of the entire Peel Watershed. This means no mining or oil or gas exploration or extraction anywhere in the watershed, regardless of previous mineral claims.

I support & applaud the protection of at least 80% of the entire Peel Watershed - however I feel this needs to be expanded to a full 100% protection as the First Nations leaders have called for. Roads & industrial development are incompatible with watershed ecosystem protection especially in such a unique & pristine wilderness area as the Peel. The remote, diverse & undeveloped nature of the area is part of its inherent value - to the local flora & fauna, to the First Nations & what remains of their traditional way of life, to Canadians who take pride in the fact that we still have some wilderness left, & to countless millions of other around the world who continue to travel to Canada to see our 'wilderness'.

%100 protection.

I am in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.

I support the idea of protecting the Peel watershed from development, including roads and industries.

I support the emphasis on setting aside the majority of the watershed as SMAs although I would prefer to see the entire watershed set aside as SMAs, with no IMAs.

I do not agree with any of the recommendations of the Peel Land Use Plan. This entire planning exercise has been a complete waste of Canadian tax payer's dollars. To remove this 68,000 square kilometers from any future development is ludicrous. We do have competent regulators in this country that are more than capable of reviewing any developments on a case by case basis rather than shutting down 14% of the Yukon for business.
Larry Lebedoff
Whitehorse

I support that no roads should be allowed in the Special Management Area. I support protection of the Peel Watershed, however, I am in favor of 100% protection. I support traditional use of the watershed by the First Nations concerned.

I support the parts which offer maximum protection of the land and they should be extended to the entire region. 100% protection of the Peel, nothing less will do in the long run.

I support the protection of the Peel watershed from industrial development: no roads and no extraction of mineral resources. I would like to see 100% protection against development for the entire watershed. Let us pass on some small part of the Earth in pristine conditions to future generations and allow them a say in the future of this land.

I support large scale (100%) protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development that disturb environment. I want to ensure well-being of fish and wildlife which depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed. The vision of sustainable development is important to follow. Furthermore, I support a withdrawal from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

I specifically do not support a single portion of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.

In favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.

I support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection.

I value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and I want it to remain this way.

I agree with the Commission's perspective that managing the Peel watershed in accordance with the vision of sustainable development outlined in the UFA is fundamental to the plan.

I think all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

Having read the recommended Plan, it is very well done. Specifically the IMAs and SMAs as shown in the recommended Plan make sense. My belief is that legitimate planning considerations were used to identify a balance of the highest and best economic and social uses of these lands. Knowledge gathered in the planning process appears to have been reviewed carefully. The review has produced recommendations which are wise choices for sustainable use. It provides the best options for the future. I support the plan's recommendations. One last comment; the public battle between industrial interests and their lobbyists and the go slow and no development interests and their lobbyists represents a fringe on each side of the public discussion in my opinion. Each wants the plan's recommendations changed to suit more narrow beliefs. Each side claims that the plan's recommendations are very flawed, are not supportable, and they want more land set aside or available to their beliefs. Unfortunately their positions would be exactly the same regardless of the plan recommendations. It would be, 'give us more land'. It is their inherent viewpoints that are flawed, not the Plan's recommendations. Thank you for your excellent work.

I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed with no mining, roads or industrial development whatsoever. I support the First Nations call for 100% protection. There are few large areas of pristine wilderness remaining on this planet--the Peel Watershed is a valuable resource as is, undisturbed.

I am in favour of 100% protection of the Peel watershed. There should be no gas, mining or oil development now or in the future.

I support the Recommended Plan as a whole. It is obvious that the Commission spent a great deal of time and effort learning about the region in question, identifying different distinct ecoregions/planning areas within the watershed, and weighing the value of the land in each case as unspoiled wilderness vs. as a source of mineral deposits. Why second guess this work? My only concern is with the areas that would remain open to development under the Commission's Recommended Plan, contrary to the clearly expressed and deeply held views of the First Nations whose traditional land this is. The government should seriously consider protecting 100% of this area. The Peel Watershed is hugely valuable to future generations in its current relatively unscathed state. There are few such large tracts of undeveloped wilderness with high wilderness tourism potential left in the world. Please keep it that way.

I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. I am significantly concerned with the potential for mining exploration and development to create unforseen, large scale damage to the water quality, which supports a huge area of Yukon habitat, including areas outside of the Peel Watershed.

I support the First Nations' recommendations for 100% of the entire 68,000 square kilometre Peel Watershed to be protected.

I believe that all of the Peel Watershed should be protected. We have the opportunity to save this important wilderness from the disruption and destruction that industry will inevitably bring. This is a chance to join with First Nations in standing up for the waterways, the fish that live in them, the animals, plants and all that sustains this special area. Let us not betray future generations with our greed and short sightedness.

I support the government in NOT compensating the existing claims in the Peel watershed. I support designating the Wind River trail as not being an existing route. I support the work done by the commission in attempting to protect 80% of the watershed, but I would like to see the Yukon government accept the First Nations' recommendations of protecting 100% of the entire 68,000 km watershed.

I support the Recommendation of 80% protection in the Peel Watershed in Special Management areas as a minimum level of protection. I feel that the First Nations' call for 100% protection is the ideal outcome and one that I would support.

I support the precautionary principles of the plan, the democratic reflection of stakeholders in the plan, the strong values of ecological integrity and sustainability of economic activities. I support the view that acceptable human activities must fall within the ecological sphere of the Venn diagram. I support all protection proposed in the plan.

I strongly support the protection provided in the SMA Land Use designation. This LU designation provides emphasis on Fish and Wildlife, Watershed Management, Heritage and Protection. This is critical for the Peel Watershed to maintain it's ecological and socio-economical integrity. I strongly support that the plan recognizes that there are many different non-mineral values in the Peel Watershed and that ALL are important to preserve.

I support discussions about planning and the process.

As a resident of Yukon, I want to see the YTG protect this area from any development for at least 100 years. The commission's work is more than I have time to review right now, and I don't want to be specific as the questions on this website ask because the Peel watershed needs to be protected in its entirety!
Protect it! It is better to leave it and if in 100 years it proves to have been not the best choice for the planet and persons on it, then review it. In my opinion, to date the government of the day in Yukon has not grasped the concept that there is much more than short term economic gain at stake here. A moratorium needed to be placed on staking in this area years ago. It is another short sighted move of this government to have allowed the staking to continue. How could the resulting staking frenzy not be interpreted as a money grab?
Protect the Peel watershed in its entirely. No, not every area of the Yukon, but definitely this area.

I fully endorse the recommendations of the Peel Land Use Planning Commission. I concur with protecting the 80% of the watershed, as indicated in the plan.

I support those SMAs that do not allow roads and have land withdrawals

I support the majority of the recommendations in the plan. In particular the conservation objectives, the creation of SMAs and the restrictions to access and mineral staking in certain areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not support any development in the Peel Watershed and believe that all uses including wilderness tourism should be very limited and regulated carefully, erroring on the side of caution.

I do not support the removal of 20% of the Peel Watershed from protected status.

at any time NO MOTORIZE EQUIPMENT on this land . Limited ACCES by Air with restriction . THIS SHOULD BE A RESERVER FAUNIQUE ALL THE WAY.

I do not support any aspects of the Recommended Plan as stated. A lack of surface road access effectively negates any potential for a mineral deposit to be placed into production, and effectively sterilizes the land from development.

I question the character of the capacity to limit development. The YTG appears to be able to override the plans conditions when deemed necessary from what is often a political perspective. The rush on staking claims in the watershed is an example of the YTG commitment to preserve the watershed.

I do not support ANY development in the peel watershed. No claim staking should be allowed. This area needs to be kept pristine for all future generations and our overall health and wellbeing.

I do not support the part that allows any company or person in with the intent of creating development of any kind or removing the resources for profit. The government has been allowed too many times to make promises that aren't kept. I've seen the destruction searching for oil in Alberta. Keep out! It always sounds good in theory, but never turns out the way you say it should. You are wanting to dig into the heart of Canada. 100% protection! Nothing else will work. If you provide 100% protection, then you can
gaurantee that nothing will get damaged because there will be nothing allowed there to damage it.

I do not support any development in the area. Some areas of the planet should be preserved for the good of all the creatures who depend on a healthy environment. I'm sure developers can find ample areas that already have roads and other development. To target a wild and prestine area seems greedy and irresponsible.

None

I do not support oil and gas development or mineral development in the watershed. I do not support the development of new roads near the Dempster highway. I do not support any major developments in the region.

anything that alows the explotation of any existing claims that where filled after the plannning commission started its work, anyone who filed them was just trying to do a land grab so to speak. all claims filed after the start of the commission should be allowed to expire and no new claims shoudl be allowrd in the peel region. All Claims from before ~1600 of them should be relaesed over aan extended period of time. I feel that

I do not support the removal of 20% of the Peel watershed from protected status. I do not think that the plan should be amended to allow for road access.

The process for allowing existing mineral claims in SMAs to continue, without expansion and without ground access, is a convoluted way to find a compromise between the legal obligation of government to existing claim holders and the necessary conservtaion agenda of the Plan. Other jurisdictions have dealt with this by compensating the mineral industry for lost claims, - a well publicized and well-known process. It seems logical that this Plan should make a similar recomendation, but it is not discussed. This is a weakness of the Plan

I do not support any of the recommended Peel Watershed Land Use Plan. I don't think there is any way to develop this area without having a permanent negative effect on the environment. Why can't we just leave this area alone? I think the short-term gains ($) are not worth the long-term environmental issues this Plan would cause.

I don't support mineral and resource extraction from the Peel. This would require roads which would forever alter the character of the Region. I don't trust the Government or industry to keep the environmental impact to a minimum in any part of the Yukon, never mind the Peel. Environmental regulations are are always up for negotiation, unfortuantely.

Each and every one that wants to destroy even an inch of it.

I do not support any industrial uses, including ongoing work of current mineral/gas claims. I do not support any road development.

I do not support any of it at all, our land is pure, a gift and more importantly it is ours! 20% is alot, can you imagine what this can do to our animals and plants? Mother Nature is dying slowly and the people to blame is the government and all the oil and gas industries, their killing her, and we are also to blame for letting it happen. \we cant have NO DEVELOPMENT on our land, our land that is untouched by the government and only touched by our people, our people lay there resting, life was concieved and born there. The land is to great for industry to ruin our history!!!

I do not support ANY development in the peel watershed. This area needs to be kept pristine for all future generations.

As I was saying, I only support 100% protection of the whole area

I think the Blackstone river should also be part of the Special Management Area. It's a beautiful wilderness trip where you don't have to fly in and walking up the Oglivie is part of the adventure. It's a wilderness trip that is very economical and has no whitewater so many people can use this river for recreation.

I do not support the IMAs. I believe those areas need the same protection as the SMAs, especially in the Northern part #5 where they are in the wilderness away from the the access rd, the Dempster.

I am opposed to any industrial development in the Peel Watershed. I believe that "sustainable development" will only result in the eventual destruction of the entire ecosystem. Caribou, grizzlies and other wildlife need intact wilderness. I also believe that the entire Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

I do not support the removal of the consideration of cumulative effects since the Draft Plan; while this is a complex issue, it needs to be dealt with at some point and we have seen the buck continually passed on cumulative effects through a variety of levels of planning and assessment. I think existing mineral claim owners should be compensated instead of allowed continued access and development rights within SMA's. The allowance for development of existing claims runs contrary to the intent of the plan to allow 'sustainable development' as defined in the UFA.

I do not support the recommendation of 20% in the Peel plateau and other areas for extractive industrial development. I am also extremely hesitant to support any further exploration in the whole planning region as this will only allow the "death by a thousand (small) knives". The impacts of exploration are already quite large - witness the Caribou Creek mess, Crest Iron Ore deposit waste cleanup (yet to be completed after 40 years) and the materials, fuel and camp debris that other companies exploring have left in their exploration areas over the 80 years. Even some the new exploration camps, drill sites, and infrastructure will likely be abandoned,
notwithstanding the the clauses in their permits requiring clean up.

I do not support the removal of 20% of the Peel watershed from protected status at all. There should be no road access to existing claims or any in the future. No motorized use on the land. I also feel that Wilderness Tourism activities need to be managed and monitored so that this area is not "loved to death" resulting in negative human impacts on the landscape over time.

We do not support the recommendaiton to leave 20 per cent of the watershed open for industrial development. We do not support allowing the mineral claims, iron leases, coal permits and oil/gas dispositions to remain in the protected areas. Even without new roads, work on these parcels could have a huge impact on the land, the water, the wildlife and other users.

I believe there should be 100% protection of the Peel watershed,not just the 80% now being proposed.

I support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection of the Peel Watershed. I do not believe that 80% is nearly enough.

i do not think roads and industrial development are compatible with protection

I support the First Nations Peoples request that not only 80% of the watershed is protected but all of it (100%)

Oppose: Any industrial activity, including road building, in the remaining natural areas.

none

I do not support the concept of Integrated Management Units. The language is loose and nonspecific. I fail to understand how exploration of mineral / oil and gas resources would not eventually result in development of lands, including roads. In development of any land use plan, we must think into the future. In its current state, the plan does not incorporate adequate current and future protection of the Peel Watershed.

I would like to see the entire Peel watershed set aside for protection - all 100%.

I do not believe any of the watershed should be developed for profit. The people that live there and know the area best, like the First Nations people, should have the strongest voice regarding use of the area.

None.

I may have already commented on this in question one. The 20% unprotected area should be reduced to 0%. To repeat my view from question one: We have many examples of reaching a compromise between the forces of environmental protection and development. They almost always work out to be short term profits for developers and long-term damage to the environment. The cleanest methods ever devised for mining and other extractive industries still leave lasting scars on the earth long after they take their decade or two of profits then leave. If there were some dire need for the natural resources located there, then maybe a case for compromise for compromise could be made. However, a few jobs and minor economic gains do not justify any road development or extractive development. And finally, the First Nations people who live there don't want the development. For once, it would be nice to actually treat their wishes seriously,
especially since it will also profit us long-term by preserving a true wilderness area - something almost non-existent today.

80% protection is not good enough.
Please listen to the people and protect this watershed 100%

I do not support industrial development in any part of the Peel Watershed.

20% of the Peel left available for development/ unprotected - this needs to be reduced to 0%, i.e. 100% should be protected. Otherwise the ecosystem/ watershed is not intact and its value as pristine wilderness is lost, and the health & well being of the local fish & wildlife will be threatened. There should be no mineral, oil, gas or other resource exploration or extraction, nor other industrial development within the Peel watershed.
I do not support any claim staking, exploration or development while the planning process is underway - any claims that were filed after the planning commision started should be allowed to expire without allowing any exploitation of said claim. And pre-existing claims should be 'bought out' with compensation to claim owners.

100% PROTECTION

I don't support the idea of protecting only 80% of the Peel watershed. I support the First Nations peoples' recommendation that 100% of the Peel watershed be protected from development, including roads and industrial uses.

I do not support the Integrated Management Areas. I believe that these areas should, at a minimum, be given SMA designations. First, I believe in protecting the entire watershed and that would also entail these areas currently planned for IMA designation. I do not believe that mining and industrial use in any part of the watershed can ever be done in a manner so as to completely guarantee that there would be no effect on the wildlife or water. Keeping the entire watershed as intact as possible is of utmost importance for me. Additionally, some of these IMA’s are in the porcupine caribou herd habitat. Given the current uncertainty of the caribou population’s status and the unknown effects of climate change, I believe it is prudent and necessary to leave any area they need now, or may need in the future, as completely untouched by exploration, mining or other industrial activity as possible.

Furthermore, I do not support recognizing the right to exploration of the existing mining claims within the SMAs, especially for those staked during the post-2004 rush. Exploration, so far, has not left the Peel Watershed as untouched as we might hope. Exploration has left its mark both physically, with abandoned camps, fuel barrels and contamination, and also psychologically in the minds of visitors that have endured near-constant overflights by exploration aircraft.

The proposal that only 80% of the Peel Watershed be protected.

I am happy that the plan recommends 80% of protection, however we should go for 100% protection. I do not support the idea of 20% of Integrated Management Area where oil, gas and mine exploitation may exist. I do not support the idea that there would be any uranium exploration or explotation in the Peel Watershed. Uranium is one of the most dangerous industry for the environment and human health. I do not support that the IMA are at the start of the Watershed. What is the use of protecting an area if there is pollution such as acid rock drainage right at the start. I support the First Nations in their will to protect the whole watershed.

I do not support any parts which allows for roads and industrial activities. The Peel is our last chance of large scale protection of a truly magnificent area.

Rather than 80% of the area protected from industrial development, I want to see 100% of the Peel watershed protected including the Dempster Highway corridor. I also think that all claims staked after the start of the Peel watershed planning process should be terminated.

I do not support roads and industrial development, mining or oil and gas activity.

There is no reason to be specific on this matter. That is because I do not support any of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan. There is vast potential for mining and exploration in the Peel Watershed and to exclude it from any development is reckless. There is the potential for this area to support a large number of high paying jobs within the territory in the future. To exclude the region to industry yet provide access to other user groups is simply wrong. I also think that it is a joke for the commission to even suggest that airships would be a viable resource transportation method in the future. This unbalanced land use plan sets a precedent for other plans in the future.

I do not support the view that the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is an impartial body representing all Yukoners. The Commission is solely representing the views of northern First Nations and private user groups.

I do not support any of the land use recommendations. As is, the recommendations fail in achieving anything close to a balance. Closing 98% of the Peel Region to resource-related industry is unfair to everyone with current and future interests in the economies of the Yukon and Canada.

My only concern is with the areas that would remain open to development, access roads and/or motorized recreation under the Commission's Recommended Plan, contrary to the clearly expressed and deeply held views of Yukoners generally and in particular of the First Nations whose traditional land this is. I am also concerned about the potential for Off-road Recreational Vehicle use and thus damage of the area, which may not be adequately addressed by the Plan.

I do not support the development of any roads, winter and/or summer, which would support industrial development in the Peel Watershed. I feel that the development of roads would create a difficult situation to effectively protect the watershed (habitat, fauna and flora diversity).

I do not support existing or new industrial activities in the Integrated Management Areas. I do not want to see 20% of the Peel Watershed excluded from protection.

I do not support resource extraction in the Peel watershed, including the almost 20% of the watershed currently proposed as an Integrated Management Area. Places like the Peel are too unique globally to be allowed to be developed in that way. The issue of outstanding claims within the watershed should be resolved without allowing for mineral extraction in the watershed.

I do not support the consideration of industrial activities along the Dempster highway, because of the ecological, aesthetic, and economic values of maintaining the wilderness character of this area. I wholeheartedly support the First Nations request for full protection of the watershed. To maintain the integrity of an entire watershed is a unique opportunity in our age. The Dempster and Blackstone area is prime winter caribou habitat and migratory area, not to mention habitat to an abundance of other large mammals. It is also an unforgettable place to visitors, and so many Yukoners, who discover this place by vehicle (Dempster), canoe (Blackstone) or foot (all areas). It is the one wilderness area of the watershed which is accessible to people by vehicle for recreation, tourism industry, subsistence harvesting. If the Dempster corridor or the Blackstone river were compromised of their wilderness qualities, it would put the wilderness of the Peel watershed out of reach of the appreciation of those who would not fly into the region. Conserving the Dempster and Blackstone and other IMA's from industrial development keeps these assets of the region active and healthy. If we are not to compromise our tourism industry, we must maintain the integrity of this corridor. If we are to conserve the integrity of the watershed, it would be wise to conserve this corridor as well.

I do not support the Intergrated Management Areas. Especially IMA 1,3,4, and 5. I wonder what mitigation can be done in a SMA that would protect it from the bi-product of industrial activity up river.

When preserving a watershed, it only makes sense to also protect the head waters. I do not support the Lower Ogilvie River, The Blackstone River, the Dalglish Plains and the Peel Plateau IMA designations. These should be re-designated as SMAs.

I do not support closing more of the Yukon T. to mineral claim staking. I do not support closure of the area to surface access. I do not support non-compensation for existing rights holders if the plan is enacted as recommended. I do not support a moratorium on uranium mining activities. I do not support restricting the permitting of new airstrips. I do not support closing the Wind River Trail as a legally existing right-of-way.

I do not support 80% being withdrawn from exploration. I continue to feel that if you want to close the area to industry then it should be closed to everyone as an equitable solution.
This means no eco-tourism and no industry, tourism or groups of any sort. First Nations would be allowed to hunt, fish and use the land in a traditional manner but no joint venture relationships for the purpose of making money. What is good for one is good for all - we are a democracy and people are entitled to make a living - to give ecotourism access and not exploration or prospectors is wrong. It is clearly biased.

I do not support allowing 20% of the watershed being an integrated management zone. I think that 20% should be protected.

I don't support grandfathering the existing claims in some of the core conservation areas.

There are some areas in the world that should be left just as they are. The Peel Watershed is one of those places. The world needs places that are just there, we don't have to use every inch of the world for our own selfish comfort.

I support the current plan recommendations as the best we can do at the moment, but my true preference is for even more conservation of that area (and other areas) with no mining or oil and gas to be allowed. I say this only because of an experience I have been having over the past year of clearing environmental contaminants (mainly metals and plastics) out of my body. I am beginning to think that these substances (metals and oil and gas), as an elder once said, may in fact be meant to be left in the ground. I acknowledge that in the Yukon, or even in western society, we are not there yet in our understanding of how to live a more sustainable lifestyle so, in the interim, I do support the proactive approach the commission is recommending in this plan. Perhaps this will be a key stepping stone on the path to a more sustainable future.

Stating that protection from mineral development preserves the Peel Watershed for future generations of Yukoners is misleading at best. Other than First Nations peoples, the watershed will be accessible only to clients of high-priced wilderness tourism and outfitting businesses, and will be financially out of reach to almost anyone of moderate income levels or lower.

By allowing responsible exploration and mining to take place, many more Yukoners including First Nations peoples (as well as Canadians elsewhere through tax and royalty revenues) will benefit through solid, well-paying jobs. Canada will also eventually require access to the mineral potential of this area, including materials for the equipment and infrastructure for alternative energy sources. This can be done while keeping the integrity of the ecosystems in place.

Acceptance of the plan as proposed doesn't provide a service to most Yukoners; it provides an injustice.

I would like to see even more protection of this area, but if opening up 20% of the area to development is what it will take to save the other 80%, then so be it.

I have seen considerable change in the rivers of the watershed over the past 40 years. I think that the YTG believes that mining and oil and gas interests provide great profit to the Yukon. The Carr report done in the mid 1960's does the kind of economic analysis that shows the relative benefits of these costs to the Yukon's economy. Faro stands as an example where recovery costs greatly exceeds the benefit of the mine.

I am in favor of the Peel watershed to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas exploration and development

To sell a prestine wilderness for the short term "quick money" is a mistake. Once this area is developed, do we turn to the next prestine wilderness in the pursuit of money? Can't we find places for development that already have roads and develoment. I think future generations will thank us if this area is preserved from development. Once the roads are built and development starts, the area will never be the same. I wonder if that will affect the tourist industry.

If the Peel Plan is to be executed, I have one thing to say. And that is if You execute in this form, then have the land as pristine as You would have. But do not allow any man to cross this land. Whether He or She be Native or non Native. This land is for all Peoples.

I appreciate the focus on preservation and conservation. I also appreciate the development of policies to protect this very special place. I support the use and enjoyment of this place through renewable activities carried out in a sustainable way (ie. hunting, fishing, paddling, hiking), and think that it is wise to begin to manage these and learn more about the ecosystems and the people it supports. I worry that opening the watershed up to development and any building of new roads, will open the way for more in the future. I would like to see strong policies ensuring that ANY development that happens is not only minimizing it's impacts on the watershed, but that the purpose of this development is also in alignment with the principles of sustainable development. Do we really need the oil and gas, and minerals that we are taking? What is the land being developed for? Is it wise? Who benefits? There needs to be mechanisms in place to stop the development if it is not in alignment with the values of the plan. I come from Alberta, where there has never been a project stopped due to an environmental impact assessment - Stronger policies, and a stronger vision, are needed to achieve sustainable development. Our ever increasing dependence on oil, gas and virgin minerals will increasingly put pressure on wilderness areas - and we need very strong policies in place to ensure that the social and ecological systems that we depend upon are not degraded over time.

I fully support the First Nations desire to have 100% of the Peel watershed protected. we have to think towards the future - a minimum of 7 generations for our chilkdren and their childrens children. We need to have strong policies, regulations and accountability. Land-use plans should not be amended by politicians trying to gain favour from their constituencies as poloiticians are responsible to all - not just industry.

The Yukon territorial government needs to implement a compensation scheme so that the conservation agenda required in the Peel can be fully implemented, and the mineral industry can move forward. More fundamentally the government needs to review the free entry mineral staking policy: speed up land use planning so that all interests have greater certainty as to what land uses are allowed, and /or put some interim geographical limits to the free entry system until land use planning is done.

I oppose development in the Peel River watershed. We are losing wild spaces at an alarming rate. The Peel must be protected in perpetuity from further development, such as mineral exploration, extraction or other industries, roads and structures. Non-invasive, limited wilderness travel (no trace) may be allowed.

I think Yukon needs a profitable industry and we can't keep taking from money from Canada without contributing like everyone else. It is unfair to enjoy our lifestyles as Yukoners on the backs of other fellow Canadians. I support the current plan and its future goals for development. Yes there where large environmental disasters in Yukon and everyone wants to avoid. But from those, Yukon developed strict environmental policies which and I don’t think quoting Faro is fair. The point to take away from this is if we want to live in the Yukon then we have to generate money and have an industry (especially in the times we are living in) those are the basic principles of economy. If Yukoners are extremely against adding new infrastructure then we should stick to our guns and abandon Yukon and let nature reclaim our cities and communities because we can’t have it both ways.

Do not place the pipeline where it can ruin the only clean nature habbitat of the gwich'in because thats all we have left of what we had right form the start.

Good land use plans are complicated. They are not intended for the casual reader - they are the shop manual for a very complicated machine. This plan is not too complicated. It has rightly set aside the myriad of details still required to effect proper management via the plan. It will take several years to properly implement this plan. Look at the UFA and individual First Nation Agreements - they are still in the process of being put into effect - in fact the Peel plan is one of those processes.

Honestly i believe its ridiculous, the area does not need to be touched, dug up, destroyed. I have been there personally it is amazing. why would any one want to take the beauty of peel watershed away?
It's also a national park, as far as i know national parks are pretty and DO NOT have any sort of development on them.

Yes, I would like to point out the Tombstone Park in Yukon as an example of what happens when an area is designated as a park only. It has now attracted bumper to bumper tourists that are not regulated efficiently and you can see the garbage and distruction along the main pathways where too much human activity has devastated the environment. Much more than you would get from a regulated mining exploration company that would be proactive in protecting the environment whilst exploring and 99% of the time create social and economic stimulus to the area without ultimately finding a mine.

I had the opportunity to see lands of the Peel River Watershed, Snake and Wind River two years ago. We were on the Three Rivers Conservation Expedition, and I could realize that this region is one of the most beautiful, pristine areas in the world that no one should have the right change this landscape forever...please just leave it alone!

We German cannot imagine such an amazing landscape in our country or even in Europe! I told everyone I know about my experience in your country and showed thousands of pictures. I have never seen so many envious eyes and fascination.

I think if all the First Nations are in agreement to protect the Peel Watershed, then we should really listen to that. I have canoed the Hart, Snake, Bonnet Plume and Blackstone and they are my favorite rivers. You just have to go and see it and be there to really understand the beauty of the place, it's just stunning! Wow!!

Canadian First Nations and North American Conservationists are now becoming a very powerfull lobby in the Yukon and Canada in general. If Canadian provincial and territorial governments are going to bow to all their huge protected area demands, then these governments have a duty to inform the oil, mining and exploration industries immediately, so these industries can take their jobs and their investments to other countries who want development.

I support 100% protection for the Peel watershed.I feel that the government hasn't played fair by allowing new claims to be staked while there was discussion about a land use Plan and I don't trust that they will honor the plan as proposed let alone protect it even more. I don't believe that this area should be sold for short term fast cash. We don't have to develop every inch of this planet. Fish and wildlife also need a place to live.

100% protection of this watershed is the only ethical and economically wise choice that will provide a legacy for the future.

This wilderness is remote, beautiful and intact; a remnant of what North America was like before development. I canoed the Snake in 1997 and sets of friends have canoed the Wind in different years. Contrary to some comments, we are neither rich nor elite; just ordinary working Canadians who love wilderness and choose to travel in wilderness rather than purchase RVs, ATVs, snow machines or visit tropical resorts. To know that there is still a chance in North America to protect a remote, intact ecosystem is inspiring and a source of hope. To contemplate its destruction through development which will not be "sustainable" is almost unbearable. The history of "development" shows that industry and long-term survival of wildlife and wilderness are not compatible. Please demonstrate vision and protect the entire Peel Watershed for future generations.

I support the First Nations and want 100% protection for the Peel Watershed. I support no additional road other than the existing Demptser Highway. I think that no mine, oil and gas exploitation should ever be admitted in the Peel Watershed, but especially until the plan is finalized. It is essential to renew the moratorium expiring in 2011. If the moratorium would expire before the plan is finalized, it would be cheating on all Yukoners and go against our democratic rights.

This needs to be addressed as an election issue. Talk to friends.

I've been guiding canoe trips on the many rivers in the Peel watershed for more than 20 years. It is a truly unique wilderness destination - not only in the Yukon but also in Canada and the world. I have guests who return year after year to do another one of the Peel tributaries. They don't just come for the great paddling, they also come for the wilderness and the wildlife. There is something magical about travelling through a landscape that has remained untouched for thousands of years.This is extremely rare and its value should not be underestimated.
If the Peel is protected, companies like ours will be able to offer wilderness trips and make a living off the land forever. It is truly sustainable if done properly and it really would provide for future generations.
The Peel commission has done its work and the land use planning process has worked as it should. Conservation has been identified as the highest value. The message from the First Nations, tourism groups, environmental organizations and most of the public is clear - protect the Peel.

Once a pristine wilderness area like the Peel watershed is ravaged by harmful industrial activity like logging,mining and oil and gas development,it's uniqueness is lost forever and all the money in the world cannot bring back what has been lost.This area must be left in it's wild state for the sake of the wildlife.

I think roads and industrial development are incompatible with protection; thus, none should be permitted in the Peel Watershed.

I value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed to thrive.

I think all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalised.

you think all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized you value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they
depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and you want it to remain this way

I am in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development. In the North, roads and industrial development are compatible with protection. I support support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection. I'd like to see all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

The Peel Watershed should ban roads and ban industrial development. I support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection!

Although I am not a citizen of Canada, I do visit often and do extensive backwoods camping. For this reason I have a decided opinion about what should be done in the Peel Watershed Planning Region.
I emphatically favour large scale protection for the Peel Watershed, with no roads and no industrial development.
Because of that, I believe roads and industrial development are incompatible with protectionm as the First Nations have argued in their call for 100% protection.
Only in this way can fish and wildlife, which depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed, be preserved for the future.
Thus I agree with the Commission's perspective that managing the Peel watershed in accordance with the vision of sustainable development outlined in the UFA is fundamental to the plan.
In short, all of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

The Peel Watershed should be protected AT LEAST as strongly as outlined by the Peel Watershed land use planning board

Full Peel ecosystem needs permanent protection.

The Peel Watershed should receive as much protection as possible. The ecological and cultural values contained within it are priceless when compared with short term industrial development such as mining and fossil fuel extraction which completely destroys the ecological and cultural values.

Wild land is Yukon's greatest asset, and its value will only increase over time. Yukoners want to preserve this land for the plants, animals and their descendants. Here we have a great opportunity to protect a significant amount of land.

I support 100% protection.

I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed for the sake of the generations to come. I would like them to have the opportunity to experience this magnificent wilderness area rather then paying for massive clean up of a exploited and scarred landscape.

I believe the entire Peel watershed, 100% of it, should be protected from industrial development. Even 20% is too much land to risk to the human appetite for short-sighted gain at any cost. How many abandoned and contaminated mining and other industrial sites are Yukoners already paying to maintain and mitigate? Let's not even risk this in this pristine environment.

Think of the future and not just the immediate profit which is short term.

I am in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.
Roads and industrial development are not compatible with protection.
I support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection.
I value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and I want it to remain this way.
All of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.

100% Peel watershed Protection! Honor 1st Nations! This spectacular world heritage wilderness area must be kept that way! No roads or development. It is not a sacrifice area! For our health & economy & sanity- Keep it Wild & pristine. It would be much appreciated by all present & future generations of all species.
Thank you, Lydia Garvey Public Health Nurse USA

Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
To open up the Peel watershed area for mining exploration, compares to selling the Mona Lisa for $20.00

Hi I am from Aklavik, NT. I am in support of the plan, but because we drink the water from the Peel River I would recommend 100 protection from development. The Peel River is our only source of water right now and if contaminents gets in the water, we end up drinking it. Thanks

Make it happen. Total protection. We can do it. The courage this government will show in completely protecting this watershed will be greatly respected and appreciated by yukoners, by the land, by the world.

Wilderness and wildlife values in this region far exceed any benefits that may come from industrial development. Industrial development of any kind is not compatible with the value of the region as a wild and natural place.

Make the whole drainage a properly protected territorial park, and you will send a message to the world that the Yukon is, in fact, the beautiful wild land that they think it is. This is a perception of extreme value, economically and otherwise.

I have travelled on the Bonnet Plume River three years ago. I have never experienced more natural beauty and more ecological health ever before. I believe there should be no road construction, mining development, and other natural habitat disturbing humane processes and developments. This is one of the regions of the world that which is still complete and healthy and grand in scale. It can't be that foreign and national companies come and develop their mining/oil/gas businesses in our beautiful North. I 100% support the First Nations to protect the Peel Watershed a 100%. This is our land and the value of it's wholesomeness is not measurable in economic terms only. I would really like to be able to share this beauty with my grandchildren and I am not a mother yet.

I strongly believe 100% of the Peel Watershed should be protected, with no roads or industrial development within it.

My name is DENNIS R. NELSON, and I am an environmental researcher, hiker, and naturalist from the "Windy City" of Chicago, IL (USA). For what is is worth, Saturday, September 25, 2010, was America's "National Public Lands Day''--which could be "expanded" to include Canada's Yukon as well! I am in favor of larger-scale protection for the Peel Watershed--with no roads and no industrial development. (Roads and industrial development are NOT compatible with this sort of protection. I support the 'First Nations' in their call for 100% preservation.) Because I value the "ecological well-being" of fish and wildlife species/populations, they depend upon the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel watershed--and it should remain that way! I agree with the Reel Watershed Planning Commission that managing the Reel Watershed in accordance with the "vision of sustainable development" is fundamental to the integrity of the entire plan. ALL of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from any additional mineral, oil and gas exploitation until the plan is finalized. Thank you!

100 % protection from industry for at least the next 50 years

The Peel watershed is not for us to exploit as we see fit. We only hold it in trust for future generations. Respect!

the value of the land is as pristine wilderness and will only increase over time as the world gets more and more crowded and wild places in may other places continues to disappear at an alarming rate.

I wanted to specifically point out yet another failure of the planning commission. They did not at all see the sustainable interests of mining and exploration. In the first few pages of the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan they showed a picture of old fuel drums with the name of an exploration company on them. Why did they do this. Could they not have put a picture of an exploration company conducting sustainable and environmentally friendly exploration work. Small, yet meaningful; this is yet another bias coming from the commission.

The Plan recommendations will bring future success to the Yukon. Their endorsement would be a very intelligent decision.

I believe there is a need for large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development. Eighty percent protection is not enough, I fully agree with First Nations in their call for 100% protection. Fish and wildlife depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and it should remain this way for future generations. Lastly and clearly, the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity until the plan is finalized.
Please fully protect the Peel Watershed in its entirety.
Thank you

In addition to its mineral resources,Yukon has highly valuable resources in the form of vast tracts of beautiful, unspoiled wilderness that is home to abundant wildlife, supports traditional lifestyles of aboriginal peoples, and attracts non-motorized recreationalists from around the world. This particular tract of land is worth preserving in its current state.

I am a Yukoner who values our resource industries, and I support the need for balanced development across the Yukon as a whole. However, the Peel watershed truly is a special case. I have been there, and I see it as a unique treasure. I therefore find myself, uncharacteristically, on the side of those who are urging the fullest possible protection of the watershed. I am also influenced in this by my respect for the wisdom of the First Nations who know the land the best. I think we should honour their wishes.

The Peel Watershed is a globally significant wilderness. The mineral and other resources that exist sub-surface there are not irreplaceable. The watershed in its current state is. 100% protection is appropriate.

If the measures are protested by the resource industry stakeholders, I beg them to consider the fact that this preference for complete conservation is unique to this intact watershed with the many qualities described. Most of the territory is open to resource exploration, including where land use planning has already been completed. The watershed has a unique overlapping of many interests and stakeholders, and it is imperative that planning honour the widest and deepest set of values, where economics is in line with heritage, cultural, ecological, spiritual values. I commend the Planning commission for the outstanding job they have done of truly listening to the values at stake. Planning with wisdom endures indefinitely.

The document in general is a good document with well thought out policy and a good foundation in protection however, I strongly urge 100% protection. Mining is not a sustainable activity by nature.

You can't put the mineral back in the earth. Once its gone, its gone, and there remains no motivation to remain and little motivation to clean up. Especially in an area so remote.

The Yukon Territory is highly under explored with regard to its mineral and energy resources. Restricting access to areas or placing additional areas off-limits to exploration and other resource development activities strongly restricts the potential of the Yukon to support its citizens and Canada. The Yukon's future belongs to responsible natural resource development, not locking up areas in the belief that one is conserving those areas.

I support the plan to preserve the Peel Watershed 100% from any mining activity. In understanding that the proper framework to construct the EIS documents by the proponents does not implicitly imply that the assessment work nor the mitigative measures proposed will be accurately considered. The construction of the road into the area is not feasible in itself due to the remoteness of the location. I believe that any mining activity should first be done in areas already in close proximity to existing roads/highways. The current acts and regulations that the government has set for hard-rock mining are very vague and present many legislative loopholes that any mining proponent could jump through. The Peel Watershed is one of the last remaining landscapes which serves as a haven for wildlife, outdoor enthusiasts, or as a way of life for people who have lived on the land. Please keep the Peel Watershed as a protected area and improve on the current knowledge of mining to rewrite the acts and regulations so that future generations can extract needed resources in a minimal impact way. I am in support of protecting the Peel Watershed from all proposed mining activity.

I am in favour of large scale protection of the Peel Watershed. I am in favour of no roads and no industrial development. The mining industry in the Yukon is already a great success without development in this area and projections suggest this trend will continue. Wildlife depend on the undeveloped nature of this area. I am in support of the First Nations who wish to have 100% protection of this land.

I have paddled the wind and peel river. It is a very powerful place whose wilderness should be left intact. I recognize that we need to balance wilderness with development, but this is not the place. We need to keep this watershed free from mining and oil and gas. Instead of opening remote road free places for development, we should be considering how to reduce our consumption patterns. This watershed, with clean drinking water and amazing wildlife is that I want to leave as a legacy for future generations. The planning commission is very brave in choosing a plan with 80% protection and I commend them for their hard work. I'd hope to see my government take leadership and protect 100%.

KEEP THE PEEL. The Peel does not suit mining. I'm nine years old and I hope when I am older I will see the Peel the same way it is now. IT HAS TO BE SAVED RIGHT NOW.

I want my name or a vote or support for the entire Peel watershed be devoid ofd mining thankyou