It's not what the Yukon government wanted to hear but, like it or not, it's what was said.
More than 85% of the written comments, received during the four-month Peel consultation, urged it to accept the final recommended land use plan and/or protect most of the watershed from industrial development.
A review of 2,420 submissions - from First Nations, boards, organizations, businesses, political parties and individuals that were recently posted online - showed overwhelming support for the Peel commission's plan. Most were from the Yukon.
When petitions and postcards were thrown into the mix, that support increased to nearly 95%.
This figure doesn't include oral submissions, not even from elders of the affected First Nations. Their comments weren't recorded or transcribed or put in any form on the Peel consultation website, which serves as the official public record.
The government's What We Heard document didn't provide any hard numbers on plan approval or share what the majority of people said.
But three of its four general findings - namely that the government should accept the commission's plan, play by the rules and protect an irreplaceable global asset - were in keeping with this results of this count.
Its fourth dealt with the pro-development faction, a view that was clearly in the minority.
This review - which included opening and reading every single comment - also found the government's "concepts" were pretty much a bust. A poor attempt at “switch and ditch” as one guy put it. Ignored by some, criticized by others, they seemed to simply create more confusion than anything.
The Council of Yukon First Nations chastized the government for putting forward such substantive changes at this late stage in the planning process. The chance to do that was in 2009, not now, it said.
More than 85% of the written comments, received during the four-month Peel consultation, urged it to accept the final recommended land use plan and/or protect most of the watershed from industrial development.
A review of 2,420 submissions - from First Nations, boards, organizations, businesses, political parties and individuals that were recently posted online - showed overwhelming support for the Peel commission's plan. Most were from the Yukon.When petitions and postcards were thrown into the mix, that support increased to nearly 95%.
This figure doesn't include oral submissions, not even from elders of the affected First Nations. Their comments weren't recorded or transcribed or put in any form on the Peel consultation website, which serves as the official public record.
The government's What We Heard document didn't provide any hard numbers on plan approval or share what the majority of people said.
But three of its four general findings - namely that the government should accept the commission's plan, play by the rules and protect an irreplaceable global asset - were in keeping with this results of this count.
Its fourth dealt with the pro-development faction, a view that was clearly in the minority.
This review - which included opening and reading every single comment - also found the government's "concepts" were pretty much a bust. A poor attempt at “switch and ditch” as one guy put it. Ignored by some, criticized by others, they seemed to simply create more confusion than anything.
The Council of Yukon First Nations chastized the government for putting forward such substantive changes at this late stage in the planning process. The chance to do that was in 2009, not now, it said.
“To carry out any activities outside of the legal boundaries prescribed by the Yukon First Nation Final Agreements creates uncertainty and could perhaps lead to legal action,” it said in its submission.
“It is in the best interests of all Yukoners to ensure that the Peel watershed final land use plan is legal and consistent with the Yukon First Nation Final Agreements.”
The four affected First Nations - the Na-cho Nyak Dun, Tron'dek Hwech'in, Vuntut Gwitchin and the Gwich'in Tribal Council - have been saying the same thing for months.
But with the Peel's moratorium on new mineral claims and oil/gas/coal dispositions set to expire May 4, time is of the essence to complete a final plan, said the Gwich’in Tribal Council, which represents four N.W.T. First Nations.
The Tetlit Elders' Council, of Fort McPherson, called the government's move to add its concepts confusing and disappointing.
“The elders of this community gave a lot of their traditional knowledge to the Peel commission’s land use planners and many of those elders are no longer here,” they wrote. “We elders put so much time and consideration into the commission’s plan – your new concepts and land use designations disrespect all of that knowledge and work.
But with the Peel's moratorium on new mineral claims and oil/gas/coal dispositions set to expire May 4, time is of the essence to complete a final plan, said the Gwich’in Tribal Council, which represents four N.W.T. First Nations.
The Tetlit Elders' Council, of Fort McPherson, called the government's move to add its concepts confusing and disappointing.
“The elders of this community gave a lot of their traditional knowledge to the Peel commission’s land use planners and many of those elders are no longer here,” they wrote. “We elders put so much time and consideration into the commission’s plan – your new concepts and land use designations disrespect all of that knowledge and work.
“Before this land use planning even started we have called for all of this sacred land to be protected and the rivers kept clean. We continued to voice that during the many years of land use planning. To us this means no roads…Roads through that land are to us like a disease that spreads.”
It also took exception to the concept of active management.
"Active management is not protection. Protected lands and active management cannot live together; it is one or the other.”
"Active management is not protection. Protected lands and active management cannot live together; it is one or the other.”
The UFA-mandated Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board said it's not opposed to resource extraction but had to support the commission's plan, in part, because the government's concepts were too vague and uncertain.
“For example, one mitigative tool described is temporary access, yet temporary is not defined nor has it been explained how temporary reverts back to no access,” it said. “The board has a long established position on access and its potential negative implications on wildlife and habitat. It is our experience that access is never temporary, nor is it regulated effectively.”
The Porcupine Caribou Management Board also backed the commission's plan. “The process to arrive at the final recommended plan was inclusive and consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement, in contrast to the current process," the board wrote.
About 30 business and conservation organizations answered the call for feedback.
“For example, one mitigative tool described is temporary access, yet temporary is not defined nor has it been explained how temporary reverts back to no access,” it said. “The board has a long established position on access and its potential negative implications on wildlife and habitat. It is our experience that access is never temporary, nor is it regulated effectively.”
The Porcupine Caribou Management Board also backed the commission's plan. “The process to arrive at the final recommended plan was inclusive and consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement, in contrast to the current process," the board wrote.
About 30 business and conservation organizations answered the call for feedback.
After spending four months studying the final plan and the concepts, the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon urged the government to accept the plan.
"This is a plan that most Yukoners, all of the affected First Nations and the tourism industry have accepted, as it would create more certainty for land use in the area and would accommodate the needs of most groups, including the tourism industry," it said.
The Yukon Chamber of Mines, one of only three groups to oppose the plan, commended the government for trying to find what it calls "a more balanced approach."
But even though it liked the designations and tools in the "concepts", it was concerned with "the current lack of details regarding the mechanics of establishment of a modified plan and plan implementation."
"This is a plan that most Yukoners, all of the affected First Nations and the tourism industry have accepted, as it would create more certainty for land use in the area and would accommodate the needs of most groups, including the tourism industry," it said.
The Yukon Chamber of Mines, one of only three groups to oppose the plan, commended the government for trying to find what it calls "a more balanced approach."
But even though it liked the designations and tools in the "concepts", it was concerned with "the current lack of details regarding the mechanics of establishment of a modified plan and plan implementation."
The Yukon Fish and Game Association wanted to go on record in support of the commission's plan.
"The plan, as presented to the public, deals with the clear message from people that wildlife and habitat in the region are of the highest value, while also achieving areas of five land management units for integrated management areas where resource development is possible," it wrote.
As for the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, it said it couldn't take a position because "not all members agree with each other on this issue."
Another two dozen or so private companies sent comments. Not surprisingly, the tourism businesses supported the commission's plan while most of the mining and oil/gas companies did not.
U.S. multinational Chevron, which has the Crest iron claims in the Snake River valley and oil/gas interests near the Dempster Highway, said the plan had to allow access to those resources.
"The plan, as presented to the public, deals with the clear message from people that wildlife and habitat in the region are of the highest value, while also achieving areas of five land management units for integrated management areas where resource development is possible," it wrote.
As for the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, it said it couldn't take a position because "not all members agree with each other on this issue."
Another two dozen or so private companies sent comments. Not surprisingly, the tourism businesses supported the commission's plan while most of the mining and oil/gas companies did not.
U.S. multinational Chevron, which has the Crest iron claims in the Snake River valley and oil/gas interests near the Dempster Highway, said the plan had to allow access to those resources.
Hundreds of individuals also responded. Most told the government to stick with the final recommended plan. All of their names were removed or blacked out by the government before they were posted, ostensibly to comply with privacy laws.
With or without names, the comments are grouped and displayed in a way that making them hard to peruse and almost impossible to search. They are all divided only by how they were received - mail, fax, email, sticky note, etc. - and some also by date and location.
There is no index to serve as a guide for the business and organization submissions whose identities have been left intact.
The site has a search tab, but it only combs 635 individuals who used the web-form to comment. The other 1,500 or so written submissions, housed in individual electronic files, have to be clicked one at a time, category by category.
The much more user-friendly public record website of the 2010 Peel land use consultation has been recently removed from the internet altogether by the government. Now the only way to access that information is to contact the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
With or without names, the comments are grouped and displayed in a way that making them hard to peruse and almost impossible to search. They are all divided only by how they were received - mail, fax, email, sticky note, etc. - and some also by date and location.
There is no index to serve as a guide for the business and organization submissions whose identities have been left intact.
The site has a search tab, but it only combs 635 individuals who used the web-form to comment. The other 1,500 or so written submissions, housed in individual electronic files, have to be clicked one at a time, category by category.
The much more user-friendly public record website of the 2010 Peel land use consultation has been recently removed from the internet altogether by the government. Now the only way to access that information is to contact the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment