Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Karen Baltgailis

YTG's Peel watershed stance earning poor reviews

The Yukon government's rejection of the land use plan recommended for the Peel River watershed is not being well received, for the most part.

By Chuck Tobin on December 21, 2010

The Yukon government's rejection of the land use plan recommended for the Peel River watershed is not being well received, for the most part.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines has welcomed the news, but that's about it for support for last Friday afternoon's government announcement.

The Liberals and New Democrats have nothing but sharp criticism for the Yukon Party's position on the recommended plan, as do the Yukon Conservation Society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS).

And the Tr'ondek Hwech'in Han Nation of Dawson City says the Yukon needs to clarify exactly what it doesn't like about the 300-page document recommended a year ago by the six members of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission.

Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Patrick Rouble announced the government cannot accept the recommended plan in its current form.

The proposed plan, the government maintains, is inconsistent with the Yukon's aboriginal land claim agreements, and is far too complicated.

The Yukon, however, will continue meeting with the four affected First Nation governments in the hopes of reaching consensus by the end of February on a joint response to the plan recommended by the commission, the minister indicated.

The parties were originally scheduled to provide their response to the planning commission no later than the middle of this month.

The commission recommended vast wilderness protection inside the 68,042 square kilometres.

First Nations and the pro-wilderness camp welcomed the recommendation. The mining industry condemned it as a death knell for mining and industrial development inside the region.

Rouble announced the moratorium on staking new mineral claims inside the planning area will be extended for another year, until Feb. 4, 2012.

The extension will provide the parties with enough time to provide their responses to the plan and give the commission time to review those responses before issuing its final recommendation, the minister indicated.

The moratorium also applies to issuing new oil and gas leases.

Rouble pointed out companies and individuals with existing mineral claims will still be allowed to work and access those claims.

Several critics of the government's decision say it appears the Yukon Party's position isn't even close to the wilderness conservation the three most affected First Nations want to see in a land use plan for the Peel.

"Obviously, the Yukon government isn't on the same page as the First Nations, and the public,” said Karen Baltgailis, the conservation society's executive director.

She said the Yukon Party seems to want road access throughout the Peel watershed, and it appears it feels there is too much area protected in the recommended plan.

The government's position is not a reflection of what was intended in the land use planning objectives set out in the territory's aboriginal land claim settlements, she suggested.

Baltgailis said she believes the First Nations expected to have meaningful input into planning.

It seems the government feels land use planning is about compromise, she said.

It's important, Baltgailis insisted, to look at the Yukon as a whole when developing regional plans.

Mining and exploration in the territory is booming right now – without any activity in Peel watershed, she noted.

Baltgailis emphasized it's the only vast area with no roads, and the sole area which can be protected in a natural state.

When the time comes to planning the Whitehorse region, she said, there's absolutely no chance for large, protected areas because of the many competing interests.

The Peel watershed is different, is unique, and should be recognized as such, Baltgailis said.

The chamber of mines, on the other hand, suggested in a press release Monday that land use planning is about compromise.

"The Yukon Chamber of Mines firmly believes that decision-making taking place in any government-led process must be founded on the principle of balance, fairness, and law,” reads the release.

It goes on to say, "The result of the Peel plan – and of future Yukon land use plans – must achieve a positive contribution to the long-term viability and sustainability of Yukon's social, cultural and economic systems, while maintaining and respecting the natural environment.”

Mike Wark, the chamber's executive director, said this morning the chamber has maintained all along that the recommended plan in its current form is "neither fair nor balanced.

"We believe a fair and balanced plan would include all users,” he said.

The chamber of mines, Wark said, has been providing input throughout the planning process regarding a balanced and responsible approach to managing land use in the watershed.

From CPAWS' point of view, however, it's clear the Yukon government is not prepared to entertain the plan recommended by the Peel commission, Mike Dehn, the society's executive director, indicated in a release Monday.

Society member Gill Cracknell suggested comments attached to the government's announcement suggest dialogue between the Yukon and the First Nations would be all but impossible.

"Yukon government is emphasizing the importance of ‘effective and collaborative plan implementation' in their press release,” Cracknell says in the society's release.

"However, the comments appended to the government's release can only be seen as an attempt to undermine the Recommended Plan and the Planning Commission.”

CPAWS and the conservation society spearheaded a public campaign promoting maximum wilderness conservation inside the Peel watershed, which included extensive support from the Yukon's Wilderness Tourism Association.

The association also issued a press release condemning the Yukon government's decision to reject the recommended plan.

"It's obvious now the government has not heard a word the tourism industry has said,” Blaine Walden, the association's vice-president, said in this morning's release. "It's really a betrayal of the land use planning process.”

Walden suggested the Yukon government's position to open up the Peel planning area to development flies in the face of the commission's recommendation which came after years of research and public consultation.

See related story below.

Comments (14)

Up 0 Down 0

True Yukoner on Dec 31, 2010 at 4:50 am

For you folks who interpret my posts as "outrage" or "pro-mining", settle down, there is no rage attached to my opinions... I simply don't believe that any good decisions can be made by folks who can't see beyond their own agenda, and this view is supported by the silly comments made above.

Up 0 Down 0

Josey Wales on Dec 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm

There are some good comments on this topic. The region is nice indeed, many are in this "The Yukon"...that is why many of us live here.

Mines cannot operate as they did during the war...WWII or Korea.

They have many requirements to turn dirt these days, unfortunately politics interfere with any real enforcement of violators of said requirements.

We all need metals for our 21st century lives...even the "traditionalists" do, snowmobiles,quads,guns,shiny new trucks...Yup, they are use metals.

Do we need to mine this region heavily?

No, I feel we do not...not heavily at least.

assume the Eco Nazis, will their lobby and protect the WHOLE region from tractors and non government employees toiling doing REAL work...

...I say lets go all the way to nature if that is the result.

By that I mean no eco tourism trails, not a outboard or quad & hell unless you walk in no human activity at all.

NONE...no traditional caribou quad hunts...no rich hippies flying in from wherever...

If protecting the environment is the real agenda vs the lobby efforts to lock up the wilds for eco tourism capitalists/new age hyppycrytes(intended)...then lets think of the critters the trees the water...and all of us STAY THE HELL OUT OF...THEIR TURF.

Are we saving the planet for the planets sake?

Or saving the planet for humans...and all the arrogance & selfishness we bring to the table.

Yes many eastern transplants that draw government salaries seem to think this place should be some exotic park mecca.

Could you imagine a time when more real work was done here and waaaaaay less bloated government entitlement gibberish?

Those days I think will now be explained at McBride museum, as the whole purpose of government unions and many many...but not all government "employees"...is how can I work way less but yet still increase my entitlements...whilst raping the taxpayers?...wherever their tax dollars come from.

Oh yeah...Subaru's & Toyota's...they need mine too?

Thule racks...Yup them as well.

JC...I'm with you on this one!

Up 0 Down 0

francas pillman on Dec 30, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Is that how it is, True Yukoner? Yea, protecting our land for future use is greedy. Destroying the environment for some temporary riches and billions of dollars down the road in cleanup costs, according to you, would be something called an "economy" right? I'm sorry but the only people who you can apply "greedy" to is mining company's. The only argument these pro-miners have is the fact that these so called conservationists, "GASP", use items that were mined. Wow, how intelligent of you to attack people on such a immature point. No one said that mining doesn't give us the goods we use in our everyday life. The point is, go elsewhere. Yup, the whole "Not in my backyard" is the point here. I'm sorry, but the sky won't fall if mining was banned from the Peel. Another thing I just checked, maybe no one noticed. There is no room for anymore people up here. Look at Whitehorse. Is this the benefits of the precious mining company's? A population base that can't be supported as it is, but let's keep packing more and more people up here. Maybe in 5 years the average price of a home might be $1 million. But again, if that's the only debate you pro-miners can bring to the table, I suggest actually doing some research rather than just parroting a FAQ from a no-name mining company. Also I do support mining if its done responsibly. But its not, you know that. Sorry If I'm so dumb to try and defend something special like the Yukon? How dare I think for someone other than myself. Not too many places left like up here, why are you people so hell bent on wrecking everything? And especially why should I support China interests here? They don't care about us. They care about money. The destroyed their own country and now need new stomping grounds. No thanks, go elsewhere. I guess dirty money is OK for Yukoners. If you support them (China interests), then you support all the terrible things they do to their people, animals and environment. Truth hurts doesn't it?

Up 0 Down 0

Insa Schultenkotter on Dec 30, 2010 at 10:31 am

"True Yukoner" is outraged that someone would want to protect 11 to 12% of the Yukon from industrial development. The percentage and argument sounds impressive.

Let's reverse the percentage and see what the argument sounds like. 88 to 89% of the Yukon is open to Industrial development, but this isn't enough, industry wants 100%.

Does this sound reasonable and fair?

Up 0 Down 0

True Yukoner on Dec 30, 2010 at 9:14 am

Dear Bob,

The Peel is only one of the areas targeted for radical conservation to - the exclusion of all other considerations. Do I think the Plan in its current form sets an uncomfortable precedent? Absolutely.

For you and all the others who have made comments in multiple forums about the animals not having a say - animals don't talk. If they did, they might say they don't like tourists traipsing around in their habitat either. No-one is suggesting going in with a bulldozer tomorrow - the suggestions I have read thus far only involve taking a broader view of the needs of all - and yes this includes the need for employment.

I am suggesting that it is not appropriate for a handful (literally) of people to decide the fate of Canada's resources. And, yes, I support recycling.

Try not to be so angry.

Up 0 Down 0

Bob Wagner on Dec 30, 2010 at 6:54 am

Yes, the reasoned arguments of the pro mining sector - from 11 to 12% of the Yukon to "cover the entire Yukon in a NIMBY blanket." in one comment.

I also have some questions about ownership. Are we humans the sole "owners" of this planet? If so, then we better be prepared to take the full responsibilities for our actions. Of course responsibility is a word out of favour with most humans these days, along with words like accountability and consequences. I wonder how many mining company executives sit in jail for past environmental crimes - none, comes to mind. Perhaps "true Yukoner" should also ask the current inhabitants of this wilderness if they want their world changed to accommodate our greed and short-sightedness. If these creatures have no say in anything then why do we?

As far as the argument about the use of metals by all of us, I guess "true Yukoner" is a strong advocate of recycling.

Up 0 Down 0

True Yukoner on Dec 29, 2010 at 9:48 am

I have lived my whole life in the Yukon and believe that good sense will eventually win the day on this issue, but it's really difficult to remain quiet in the face of such uninformed opinions.

The area that the so-called conservationists are looking to protect amounts to 11-12% of the entire Yukon - an area close to the size of the entire province of Nova Scotia. Tsk - a little greedy don't you think?

I am still surprised that the (again, so-called) conservationists believe that they can live without the products of mining (or is it just that you believe some other country should mine their wilderness for them?). In the picture above, Karen Baltgailis is wearing a hat with an Air North logo which is interesting to me because the last time I checked, those planes were not made of plastic or wood.

I'm curious to know how the "conservationists" expect to transport their eco-clients to the Yukon from around the world? Have you considered that all of your typical gear for traversing the wilderness requires metal either directly or during it's production? Do you know what your ski-poles are made of? Do you know what goes into making your moisture-wicking polypropelyne underwear? Hmmm... food for thought no?

It is also interesting to me that the loudest advocates for housing the hardest to house are also the ones who would shut down the largest industry in the Yukon without any thought at all to the cost to us all. And, did you know you need things like copper and iron to build a house or apartment building? More food for thought eh?

Finally - who really owns the minerals underground? Not CPAWS or the Conservation society, not the First Nations or the Yukon Government - sub-surface rights belong to all Canadians. You remember them, don't you? They are the ones working and paying taxes so that we can remain a welfare state. Perhaps we need to ask them if it's ok to cover the entire YUkon in a NIMBY blanket?

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

The assumption that mining creates jobs at the expense of the environment has to be corrected before there can be an honest discussion about the Peel. Every mine does not destroy the planet. Once that myth is dispelled we can move on with real planning.

Now for me to wait for the people that talk about the mines that were created 40 years ago and how they weren't reclaimed correctly and were and still are environmental disasters....welcome to the 21st century....times have changed.

Up 0 Down 0

cuttingedge on Dec 27, 2010 at 12:53 am

This we want jobs at the expense of the environment is the path to national suicide. This issue is not local it's global. This whole thing about jobs for a few, massive profit for even fewer, is about a lack of imagination and innovation for alternatives. I was a miner myself, and it seems to be more about alcohol and divorce than quality lifestyle.

Up 0 Down 0

JC on Dec 23, 2010 at 9:18 am

Jack Malone: I do get out and do talk to Yukoners. Many want jobs - good paying jobs. Mining jobs that many are qualified to do. When I came up many years ago, there were at least 5 mines running, with thousands of employees, paying good wages. The miners outnumbered the government workers. Today, there may only be a couple of mines employing only a fraction of miners. Others are biding their time doing low wage work hoping and waiting for a good mine to open up. It sounds to me like you are a government worker and definitely a tree hugger. I repeat, mining can and should be done in so-called protected areas. Years ago there was lots of work, and very few homeless and street bums. Unless the government wants to hire these people, lets get them working in mines so they can feed their families. You tree huggers and environmentalist always have the same argument - shut down the wilderness. That's your only agenda.

Up 0 Down 0

jack malone on Dec 22, 2010 at 4:54 am

@ JC: you need to get out and talk to some Yukoners. The overwhelming majority of Yukoners support protection of the Peel and realize that some areas (but not all) need to prohibit mining. Look at the Peel's YESAA process and the huge number of submissions - you cannot argue that the protection of the Peel is only a NDP/environmental issue that few Yukoners support. If the NDP and Liberals are smart, they will make the Peel a central issue in the upcoming election: Fentie and his mining buddies versus protection of a pristine area for future generation of Canadians; dollars and greed versus conservation and responsible environmental stewardship; Fentie's vision of dig it out, cut it down and truck it out versus long-term objectives of Yukoners; etc. It is going to get ugly and I hope that Fentie is held responsible.

Up 0 Down 0

Brian on Dec 22, 2010 at 3:10 am

I talk to a lot of people who are for mining in general in the yukon, but are not too sure about the Peel situation.

Up 0 Down 0

Insa Schultenkotter on Dec 21, 2010 at 11:27 am

I believe this rejection is only a symptom of the problem we have in the Yukon. We have a government of special interests. We have a Yukon Party government, not a Yukon Government. I believe the Peel Land Use Planning Commission clearly represented the view of the vast majority of Yukoners, yet the current government arrives, at this late date, with a completely different view. I do not recall "the complexity of the plan" ever being an issue with Yukoners. As with so many other issues this is a government that has decided it "knows what is best for us". We and our Yukon are being sold down the river for the benefit of a few special interests. It is time to wake up.

Up 0 Down 0

JC on Dec 21, 2010 at 8:42 am

I want to go on record in supporting the YTG's Peel Watershed stance. Everybody I talked to does as well. That makes me very suspicious of this article. Most Yukoners want good paying jobs and mining is one of the best ways, since not every body can get high paid government jobs. The life of a mine is only temporary and I see no reason why mining can't be done in a good environmental way. The NDP and fellow tree huggers can't see past their own nature god. To them, their stand is chipped in stone. The NDP loves to spend money but doesn't like to make it. Lets get that ore out and put some money in peoples pockets outside of the government workers. I believe they are in the minority on this issue.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.