Joining a National Debate - Klondike Sun

P6 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2013
LETTERS
"Looking for Clippings" continued from previous page...
There was a reporter came down that morning and took a picture of my raft and
me.
I am now 86 years old and writing my memoirs and it would be really nice to have
that clipping .
Thank you so much for your time and any effort you have while looking for the
story.
My mailing address is: Joe Keenan, 2350 Casey Place, Nanoose Bay, B.C. V9P 9G5
Phone # 250-468-7235
Yours truly,
Joe Keenan
This Regime has Usurped the Democratic Process
Dear Editor:
This is a response to the Uffish Thoughts column by Dan Davidson, “The divisive
Peel debate….”
I was delighted to read in your column, Mr. Davidson, that you can see there are
“flaws in the Yukon government’s handling of the Peel issue.”
I’m sorry to hear your expression of ambivalence about the work of the Yukon Conservation
Society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
In my experience, both societies work hard to not only preserve and facilitate appreciation
of special places, but promote wise and respectful use of this beautiful environment
we live in.
In fact, I would say they can take a lot of the credit that the public is as informed on
the Peel issue as it is. They are conscientious, ethical people who give a damn.
Your column exposed a few inaccuracies that I feel deserve clarification.
First of all, it was not just the First Nations that requested 100 per cent protection
for the Peel.
The planning commission’s initial results showed 87 per cent of Yukoners, from all
walks of life, wanted 100 per cent protection.
You can thank the societies of whom you are so ambivalent for that bit of information.
They had to use an access to information application to retrieve that data as the
previous Yukon Party government didn’t want us to know how unified we were in our
The Yukon Hospital Corporation Board of Trustees is seeking your
input into the development of our five year Strategic Plan for 2013
to 2018.
Safe quality patient care closer to home is our number one priority.
Your comments will help shape our direction for the next five years
and in turn, help determine the care available to Yukoners.
The Yukon Hospital Corporation is responsible for the care provided at
three acute care hospitals in the Yukon:
• Whitehorse General Hospital
• Watson Lake Community Hospital
• Dawson City Community Hospital (opening May 27, 2013)
We invite the public to visit our website at www.yukonhospitals.ca and
follow the Strategic Plan Survey link under Hospital News to answer the
following three questions:
1. In your view, what will be the future challenges for hospital care in the
Yukon?
2. In your view, what do you think will be the future challenges for the
Yukon Hospital Corporation?
3. Where do you think the Yukon Hospital Corporation should place its
emphasis in the next five years?
The link will be open January 4 - February 1, 2013.
You may also submit your responses by mail to:
Yukon Hospital Corporation
5 Hospital Road
Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 3H7
Attention: Craig Tuton
Please help us shape the future
of hospital care in the Yukon.
THE KLONDIKE SUN
desires.
I cannot understand why you would feel that a request of 100 per cent protection
is “unrealistic.”
Many places, such as Kluane Park and the Tatshenshini wilderness here in the
north, have been deemed worthy of 100 per cent protection.
Yes, all of these areas have mineralization, which leads me to my main point.
You say that whatever decision we make on the Peel today will likely change in the
future, is a reality that you “never hear from either side.”
Dan, with due respect, I have to say you haven’t been listening.
I am not the only one to have stated in the media that the Peel should be looked at
as an investment for the future, not unlike an RRSP.
When one considers the wealth of our resources and our vast, unspoiled wilderness,
it’s easy to see we are wealthy beyond words.
And to not put some of our good fortune away for a future generation is like squandering
a tremendous inheritance, instead of living comfortably (and sustainably) off
the interest.
Yes, you are right. Any human-made legislation can change in time.
And 100 per cent protection for the Peel now guarantees a future generation, perhaps
a few centuries hence.
The option to extract resources, if they so choose, would undoubtedly be done
with environmentally sensitive methods far beyond our imagination.
However, with the unbridled speed at which unbroken wild places are disappearing
around the entire planet, the value of a piece of unparalleled wilderness that is
the Peel will, hundreds of years from now, weigh heavily into their equation.
Perhaps they will see that wilderness value as priceless, as many of us already do.
And in the meantime, while this tremendous investment grows exponentially in
value, this gem of wilderness remains, not only for us, but the entire planet.
The other option, however, of the Yukon Party’s plan to mine the Peel (let’s call
it what it is), with roads and mines (for all intents and purposes) throughout,
viewscapes spoiled and the likelihood of toxic waters for wildlife and communities
downstream to deal with, counters your view that First Nations and environmental
groups wrongly see the “battle” for the Peel as “some sort of Armageddon with results
that will last forever.”.
Sorry, but that scenario is forever. There is no going back from that one.
In conclusion, Dan, I am most reassured that we can agree that the government’s
approach on this issue is flawed, although I would have to say it goes well beyond a
“tremendous tactical error.”
I would say that, because they intentionally withheld their true plan for the Peel
in order to get elected, and are now knowingly working against the wishes of a vast
majority of us, they have usurped the democratic process.
And that is a very serious breach of trust that they should not be allowed to get
away with.
I am most sincerely interested in your opinion on this last point, and would greatly
appreciate a response.
Thank you,
J. Borisenko, Tagish Lake
Does He Oppose Regional Land Use Planning?
Dear Editor:
I feel compelled to respond to Joe McIntyre’s letter, “Preservationists are out to
steal your livelihood!”
In it, he characterizes the Peel Watershed Regional Planning Commission’s Final
Recommended Plan as a theft of 10 per cent of Yukon.
This is a puzzling accusation.
For one thing, the land will continue to be there, we shall all remain able to go
there and even make a living there (in some parts, it will be very difficult to make a
living from mining),.
As well, it will continue to belong to all Yukoners. Some of it would be protected
from being bought by foreign multinationals.
As a member of the Dawson District Renewable Resource Council, with a mandate
from the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) to be the “primary instrument of fish and
wildlife management in Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Traditional Territory”, Joe has to be concerned
by the way the Yukon government is setting aside the work of the commission
after so much work.
It is the equivalent of his council working on a recommendation on, for example,
how domestic sheep should be regulated, for several years, with multiple consultations
with the affected First Nations, other councils, the public, all stakeholders and
various government departments.
It’s equivalent to, at the very end, to have the recommendation distorted beyond
recognition with no equivalent work or consultation behind it, all because some people
in the present government had a philosophical concern with regulating domestic
sheep.
Perhaps Joe wants to reconsider lumping category A and B land in with protected
areas.
As a member of a UFA-mandated body, as is the Peel Watershed Regional Land
Use Planning Commission, Joe should be aware that Category A and B First Nation
settlement land is not protected for or against anything, but it does belong to the
Letter continued on page 8