My Ghost-K Country Submission, its not too late!
Submit a Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-Regional Planning Response Today.
Draft Vision
Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied
Why?
The current vision sounds positive, but is too vague too support as written. It does not clearly prioritize ecological integrity, enforceable limits, Indigenous stewardship,
restoration, or cumulative-effects management. I am “somewhat unsupportive” and request this work be redone with enforceable outcome expectations aligned with ecological function needs.
Draft Outcomes
A. Recreation & Tourism Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied
Why?
A. Recreation and tourism must be managed within ecological limits. New footprint should be avoided at all costs.
B. Human Footprint Answer: Somewhat Satisfied
Why?
B. This outcome requires clear thresholds, transparent monitoring, and mandatory action when limits are exceeded. Human footprint needs to be reduced at scale for ecological function, not “managed decline”. The current human footprint is already too high and reduction needs to be the focus.
C. Headwater Protection Answer: Very Satisfied
Why?
C. The headwaters need to be defined and understood as the whole Ghost-Kananaskis region. Headwaters protection must include enforceable footprint reductions (in line with Canada’s 30x30), cumulative-effects thresholds, habitat protection, restoration of damaged areas, and stronger limits on roads and other linear disturbances. Clear cut logging activities need to cease. The forestry industry needs to present a plan for reforestation to increase biodiversity and regenerative function.
D. Traditional Land Use Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied
Why?
D. Traditional land uses should follow Indigenous stewardship, cultural continuity, access, and land relationships. This should support the long-term health of the land and water.
E. Policy Streamlining Answer: Very Dissatisfied
Why?
E. Policy should be clear and enforceable, but not simplified at the expense of ecological protection, public oversight, or Indigenous rights and responsibilities. Policy should be strengthened not streamlined for more resource extraction or commercial development. They should be clarified to enable greater public understanding and better land-use reduction enforcement.
F. Natural Resource Economy Answer: Very Dissatisfied
Why?
F. The current level of resource extraction is too big and degrading to the landscape. Biodiversity, native trout, high value ecological areas, old growth, and forest hydrology are declining. New resource extraction of any form should be banned while the water, land, and biodiversity restoration economy begins. Ban clear-cut logging and move toward ecosystem-based forest management (regenerative and selective logging practices, and the return of prescribed fire).
G. Wildfire Risk Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied
Why?
G. Wildfire prevention should be based on sound ecological planning and watershed health.
Suggestions? Yes
My A-G “whys”
Outcomes Most Important to Me
Human footprint is effectively managed to conserve biodiversity and water quality.
Our headwaters are protected.
Traditional land uses are supported.
Wildfire risk is mitigated through preventative actions.
Select a Spot You Go!
I chose a spot on the Sheep River where we fish and was surprised that fishing wasn’t an option for activities there.
Employment or Affiliation
Energy Sector
Submitting on Behalf of
The Gravity Well
The Ghost-Kananaskis plan should be ambitious, enforceable, and based on ecological conservation. It needs simple, defensible thresholds to prevent and reduce cumulative effects, habitat fragmentation, and road density.
Needed:
Key indicators measuring ecological integrity, water volume and water quantity.
Public monitoring (independent of government and industry)
Penalties when thresholds are crossed,
Mandatory mitigation responses,
Limit new disturbance
Prioritizing restoration.
My Experience
Acceptable.
Bonus ACTION: send a follow up email
To: ghost-kananaskis-srp@gov.ab.ca, cc: Banff.Kananaskis@assembly.ab.ca, bcc: landlovers@bowbioregion.ca
SUBJECT: Concerns regarding the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-regional Plan survey and request for stronger engagement
Hello Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas,
I completed the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-regional Plan survey and wanted to follow up in writing. In my experience, the survey was too limited to capture the level of detail this The survey relies on broad, vague statements and does not meaningfully ask the key questions that should shape a credible sub-regional plan. The survey relies on broad, vague statements and does not meaningfully ask the key questions that should shape a credible sub-regional plan. In particular, I am concerned that it does not adequately address ecological thresholds, cumulative-effects limits, independent monitoring, public reporting, enforcement, restoration obligations, or what should happen when ecological conditions decline beyond acceptable limits.
In my view, the Ghost-Kananaskis plan should:
Involve more meaningful public engagement, including in-person sessions focused on ecological system function requirements.
Clearly prioritize headwaters protection, biodiversity, and ecological integrity
Include simple, ecologically sound thresholds for key indicators
Independent monitoring, separate from industry and government, is required and must be reported to the public in accessible ways
Mandatory mitigation and recovery responses are required when ecological thresholds are crossed
Protect all high-value ecological areas from new fragmentation and disturbance
Commit to restoration and linear feature reduction in already disturbed areas
Support Indigenous stewardship and long-term land relationships accountably.
The headwaters of the Elbow, Sheep, Highwood and Bow Rivers are too important for vague commitments and weak accountability. I urge you to strengthen the engagement process and ensure the final plan uses ecosystem-based management with strong commitments to long-term ecological health and integrity.
Thank you for considering this input.
Sincerely, Jenny Yeremiy [Postal Code]