Only read sections of the full plan.

Yes.

Almost impossible to read, all materials too small to read easily.

Yes. Pick and section and it is easy to read. Try to go through the whole thing and it is hard because it is long - this is not a good way to judge the document. it will always be used in bits and pieces.

Yes. Well written and organised.

I read sections, then I focussed my efforts on the summary.

Yes. It was fine. It's comprehensive and has the detail needed to make informed decisions.

Didn't read full version but I think it is necessary for professional and lobbying agencies. Too complicated for public at large

No, but I wasn't expecting it to be. It's a document about a big piece of the Yukon and it addresses complicated issues and values. It deserves to be difficult to read and interpret.

no

I did not read the full version of the Recommended Plan. It is hard to read and interpret.

It was about as easy as a document of this nature could be. It was long, but I think thats par for the course when regarding a policy that will guide an issue as important as this.

The summary gave a stepping off point for reading sections of the full plan.

A full-length Plan of the type presented here is necessary for management agencies (e.g., YESAB; Land Management Branch of Yukon EMR; Yukon Environment) to get the guidance and direction they require. Much of the volume of the Recommended Plan is in the details regarding each LMU (Section 4.2). This detail is required for management agencies.

This plan is so biased and limits industry unreasonably. This document should be scrapped.

No. Not to replace the original - shorter versions could be considered for the use of RRCs etc. Einstein said everything should be kept as simple as possible but not simpler. Oversimplifying this plan by shortening it will severly reduce its usefulness.

Less - the summary document should provide those without time or inclination to read the full plan with enough information to respond.

I found the summary sufficient however, planners from all affected parties needed the complete plan, so that was required as well.

The summary is easier for the public at large but is still complicated for people with not to much education

No, the plan has to be long. The summary plan fills this role.

no

This is difficult to answer as I can't imagine what a shorter or longer document would look like. I do believe the summary was a good representation of the plan however, if one was to read the summary alone, you would be less informed.

It was well written and easy to read.

Yes.

Again, too small.

Yes. Very well done.

Easy to read, but could have included a bit more information on permitted and non-permitted activities, as these seem to be a conversation point.

Yes.

I took my time reading it because it is a subject dear to my heart and yes I understood it well

Yes.

yes

Yes, I did read the Summary Plan, and it is a lot easier. I also liked that stakeholders talked in the consultation meeting.

Yes

It is a well written and lovely document, and succinctly lays out the issues.

none

No.

Yes, let's look at the big Yukon picture. Industry needs access to potential mines and oil and gas. Yukoners need jobs. These will help reduce financial dependency on Ottawa and the taxpayers of the country. It will provide good jobs with good pay to people and help them deal with addictions.

Better and bigger maps

No.

The same map of the LMU came back over and over. While reading the summary, there were times where a map of the Peel and it's tributaries and the watershed by itself would have been useful without the LMUs.

It is too long of a process. I came to the consultation meeting two weeks ago thinking that this was the last one before protection was going to take place. I was really surprised that there was going to be another consultation meeting after the Peel Watershed Planning Commission meet again. I even heard that there was going to be a draft final recommended plan consultation meeting and a final recommended plan consultation meeting. YTG asked Yukoners what we wanted. We want protection. First Nations want protection. Now, YTG needs to act and stop consulting. Next spring, my vote will go to the party who will be capable of protecting 100% of the Peel Watershed without endlessly consulting.

This may not be an easy or even possible request but smaller scaled maps

The key to the usability of the Plan lies in the Implementation strategy. The Recommended Plan includes some detail for implementation, but defers much detail to a future Implementation Strategy. I think an Implementation Strategy should be part of the Final Plan. This section lacks some specific direction as to which agency will take the responsibility for implementation of each of the key Tasks. What is the role of the Yukon Land Use Planning Council in implementation, and, if none (as implied in the Recommended Plan), why not? Is there an inter-departmental implementation group (seems necessary given the shared jurisdictions influenced by many Plan outcomes).

The implementation section recommends development of single contiguous SMA (with overarching legal designation) for all SMAs within each emphasis class (e.g., heritage, fish and wildlife, etc.). THis seems logically impossible, because many of the LMUs are not geographically contiguous. It seems administratively too onerous in that widely separated LMUs are difficult to jointly establish, monitor and manage. If amalgamation of LMUs is required ( which I think it is), it makes more sense to amalgamate geographically adjacent SMUs in one legally designated entity, within which a management plan can deal with the different management emphases of the land base as outlined in the Plan.

Most respondents to this questionnaire are not qualified to answer this section. I'll bet that those tasked with actually implementing this plan would find it too short.

I am very much in favour of large scale protection for the Peel Watershed with no roads and no industrial development.
I wholeheartedly support the First Nations in their call for 100% protection. They are earnest in their desire and I know myself how important native wild lands are to the well being of all citizens of every country. I also value the well-being of fish and wildlife and believe they depend on the remote, diverse, undeveloped nature of the Peel Watershed and want it to remain this way.
I also agree with the Commissions’ perspective that managing the Peel watershed in accordance with the vision of sustainable development outlined in the UFA is fundamental to the plan. We must plan responsibly for a beautiful future if we want to have one. I emphatically and sincerely believe that ALL of the Peel Watershed should continue to be withdrawn from new mineral, oil and gas activity while the plan is finalized.

Please take our comments seriously, Thanks you!

One issue that might be worth looking at is to provide examples of similar or even identical examples of land-use for the different management areas. When reference is made to a territorial park, an example that could be given is Tombstone Park (even though it is outside the planning area, it allows the public an example they are probably familiar with). Similarly, when reference is made to an all-season access road, an example that could be given is the Tungsten or Canol Roads.

Sounds like a good compromise. Implement it.

It is great that YTG asked Yukoners about the Peel Watershed disscussion. It is great that the Recommended Plan passed from protecting 60% to 80% to protecting 80%. However, I support 100% protection of the Peel Watershed.

I would like to extend my thanks for the oppertunity to provide my comments on the Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan.

This can keep being examined and examined and it still really comes down to what is fair and equitable for ALL - I think this planning process is very biased and I recommend that it be returned to it's original mandate which is LAND USE PLANNING - land use means all stakeholders.