Alberta Mountain Naming Bid Stalls in Lengthy Review

When Doug Lutz set out to name an unnamed mountain in central Alberta, he expected a long and complex process, but not one that would stretch on for years or evolve beyond the name he proposed.

More than two years later, his application remains unresolved, caught in a review he says became far more complex and prolonged than he anticipated.

Lutz, an Alberta-based mountaineer, applied in 2024 to name a peak in the David Thompson Country region west of Nordegg, near Abraham Lake, “Tershishner Peak,” after the nearby Tershishner Creek. He said the proposal was based on geographic continuity, historical context and research indicating the name has roots in the Stoney language.

In his application, Lutz said the mountain forms the headwaters of Tershishner Creek and that the name likely derives from the Stoney language, meaning “burnt timber.”

The application followed a provincial process that allows individuals to propose names for geographical features through the Alberta Geographical Names Program. The program reviews submissions, conducts research and consults with municipalities, government departments and nearby Indigenous communities before making a recommendation to the minister, who holds final decision-making authority.

There is no fixed timeline for decisions, and the process can be lengthy, particularly when consultation is involved, according to the province.

Lutz said he expected that.

“I knew that, based on conversations with other mountaineers, successfully naming peaks is a long and arduous process,” he said, adding he was initially told the review could take six to 12 months.

He said he believed his application met key criteria, including a logical connection to an existing place name and strong support from the mountaineering community.

“I figured that I would need to demonstrate community support for the name,” he said. “Provide a logical reason for the name; and steer clear of any surnames.”

Instead, Lutz said the process extended well beyond a year and began to shift in ways he had not anticipated.

“I was surprised by the length of time required as the process unfolded for the engagement between provincial naming officials and First Nations,” he said.

During consultations, discussions expanded beyond the proposed mountain name to include the existing name of Tershishner Creek. Because Lutz’s proposal was tied to the creek, any potential renaming raised questions about whether the mountain name would still be appropriate.

He said that later in the process, an Indigenous name was presented as a preferred option, further complicating the outcome.

“The Stoney elders had expressed interest in renaming Tershishner Creek back to its original language meaning ‘burnt timber,’ so the mountain name I proposed would no longer be aligned,” Lutz said. “It almost feels like my application has been piggy-backed on top of, and somehow has turned into a general naming application.”

The Alberta government’s naming process requires consultation with Indigenous communities to identify traditional names and assess support, reflecting a broader shift toward recognizing Indigenous languages and place names across the province and in national parks. The province does not publicly define a formal veto for Indigenous communities, but consultation is a required and increasingly central part of the process.

That shift is reflected in recent naming decisions, including the 2021 naming of Anû Kathâ Îpa, or Bald Eagle Peak, near Canmore, as part of broader efforts to restore or recognize Indigenous names.

Lutz said he supports reconciliation efforts but found the process difficult to navigate. While his application has not been formally rejected, Lutz said his perspective has shifted significantly since he first submitted it.

“I figured that if the official name application did not succeed, I would at least attempt to get the name out there via an unofficial name process,” he said. “Throw the name at a wall and see if the community picks it up.”

Asked what advice he would give others considering a similar proposal, Lutz was blunt:

“Don’t even bother trying to make the name official,” he said. “Name your pet - that is way easier.”

Lutz’s experience reflects a broader reality in Alberta, where many mountains remain officially unnamed and where naming decisions involve multiple layers of review and consultation.

Attempts to name peaks have faced challenges in other cases as well. In 2025, Andy Everett, a seasonal worker in Jasper National Park, sought to name a mountain after his living parents, a proposal unlikely to succeed under naming rules that prohibit naming features after living people and require commemorative names to meet strict criteria.

For Lutz, the outcome remains uncertain, but the experience has underscored that naming a mountain is no longer a simple act of exploration, but a process shaped by consultation, policy and competing perspectives.