Ayers Rock Lost

Its a sad state of affairs Tony when any part of Australias unique places can be thought to be owned by and denied to others.

Hope he enjoys it !

Robin,

I think you are overstating the situation.
It’s not really being “denied” to others as we are still free to visit the site, take in the views and walk around Uluru. Only one thing has changed and that is people are being required to respect the wish that people not climb on it.

If you want to talk about land being “owned and denied to others” just think about the possibilities of what you will never see in other parts of Australia particularly the big stations.

Through family connections in the beef industry I’ve been fortunate over the years in being able to camp in some stunning places on stations across the country. Whenever I’ve mentioned the tourist possibilities to the managers they are adamant that they will never let tourists in. This view also appears to be held by the suits in head office in the far away capital city.

I can see their point as these are working properties and tourist activity would be a nightmare for them but there is some fabulous country locked away from the rest of us.

Effie

G'day Explorers

Yes ~ "It's a sad state of affairs ~ when any part of Australia's unique places can be thought to be owned by and denied to others"

If you wan't to experience this blatant form of ownership and total exclusivity, in real life terms try living in the inland Pilbara where the resource industry rules supreme.

Safe travels : Joe Fury

Respect needs to be both ways though Top End

I was out there on a re-visit 2 years ago and I couldn't even find the climb at first.

Every mention of it in the park information notes and signposts was not there making it hard to find , the whole thing seems to have been manipulated to reduce numbers which it turn was used to justify closing it.

Unfortunately they have ignored the wishes of many Australians Andrew and I think that this will prove to be counter productive in the long term

Whilst I too respect Court decisions and the wishes of those people referred too as our traditional landowners, as an aside, I do however wonder what the outcome would be if say we discover remains of Hobbits in Australia suggesting they were in fact the very first inhabitants of Australia.
Just perhaps there will be a reversal of ownership/native title, then everyone can have access to Australias special places. Imagine if no longer we are allowed to walk Kings Canyon and other unique places, or we get to pay a premium to do so.

I have no evidence to suggest Hobbits or any other people were here prior to our Traditional Owners/Indigneous people, but........ who really knows?

Actually the book "The Savage Froniter" describes with references just such a history Bobjl.

Interestingly they apparently brought with them the animal we now call a "Dingo".

I was unaware of that Robin, so I now wonder why the cat has not been set amongst the pigeons. Where to next? uuuhhhmmmm.
Bob

the place will probably go broke now ,then they will ask for a gov handout

Only 16% of visitors now climb it.

Hardly any need to cry in your beer.

It has been forced down to 16% by regularly being closed for a number of dubious reasons.

The amount of times I have heard people say the climb was closed when they went there is the reason the numbers are so low....wow what a surprise the statistics say that. Will be interesting to see if the number of climbers spikes next year as people flock to the rock for a last chance at climbing it.....sadly for many it will likely be closed on the day though, like it was on our last visit there.

Its the only reason I went also Rumpig , hoping to go past it and down Gunbarrel next year so hoping I drive drive straight thru without having to pay park fees !

Just watch , as soon as the 'no climbing' becomes law you can bet your last $ that a ' supervised payed for climbing experience ' will become available....

Robin just tell them at the gate you are transiting to the GCR/Docker River and flash your permit.
They should just wave you through with no fee.

I've done the transit 4 or 5 times now with no issue.

Thanks John , I'll do that (if I'm still alive that is)

Bad example from my point of view Dave as I do allow access to our 4wd tracks.


However the site is sacred to many Australians who have it in there genes to "Climb the biggest mountain " rather than sit in front of TV all day.

Robin, Can I suggest that if people want to "smell the roses" rather than sit in front of TV they can walk around the rock and take in the well signed and explained facets of it. If they want to see the view then there are many helicopter businesses that will offer such a view from a far higher altitude. You can argue all day long as to who "owns" the area Uluru is situated within but at the end of the day the "white man's" court decided that it belonged to the traditional owners. This was the highest court in Australia.

Cheers,

Mark

Do the helicopter rides come included in the entry cost to the park?....it's easy to say go on a helicopter ride, but not everyone has the spare dollars to do that. I can take my family of 4 up the climb for no additional cost, at a minimum of $150 a head for a 15 minute flight, $600 is a decent amount of cash to stump up.

I think that's a bit of a straw man argument Mick - we don't ban cars because of road deaths - we try and make cars safter.

Reminds me that I didn't see any Loo's at Mitchells falls recently - but I took a helicopter both ways - I wonder if I could organize that for Ayers rock in 2 years time ?

Mick, Your first two paragraphs explain why the decision has been made perfectly.

Cheers,

Mark

Lets get absolutely real , A: it is not and never has been a 'church'.
B: Climbing does Zero harm to the rock .
C: Even when T/Os climb /climbed they peed and pooped.
D: The banning is only because there is no $$ in actual climbing and as soon as the ban becomes law 'supervised' payed for climbs will become the norm .

Robin - A car analogy - really. C'mon mate. Just remember that it Uluru is their actual property. By your thinking, I can come into your back yard at any time, climb on to the roof of your house and take a crap there (What's the view like by the way?).

Alloy; Yes agree. Let's get factually real

A; - "Church" - is a building used for religious activities, particularly worship services.
The sacredness (read 'religious significance' there) to the aboriginal people of many sites around Uluru and of the rock itself has been well documented from the time of its 'discovery' by Europeans in 1873. Have a little read of the journals of William Christie Goss (19-21 July 1873), Ernest Giles, Richard Maurice (1902) and others. Even on my first visit in 1973 when things were a lot less regulated than they are now, there were areas that you simply were not permitted to go due to their religious significance to the local T/O's. - By those definitions, use of the word "church" in describing the rock from a Christian perspective is a suitable descriptor. Recognition of Uluru's deep religious significance to the local people was instrumental in Uluru being recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

B; - Not something I actually mentioned but I'd make this point - The poles that hold the chains drilled themselves into the rock then? Damage to the natural environment was an oversight on my behalf. Another good point to consider though.

C; - Traditionally the T/O's did not climb the rock because it was considered sacred and taboo. The need to climb it is something we Europeans developed a fascination for - No early explorer could find, pay or cajole a local aboriginal person to guide them to the top. It was something the locals didn't do. Edwin Berry as a member of Gosse's 1873 party was the first whitey to climb the rock and he scouted the route himself. Most other explorers used that route or a route already documented by previous visitors. (William Murray (Maurice Cambridge Gulf expedition) recorded in his journal of July 3rd, 1902 that the only place to climb the rock was at it's western end on the route taken by Mr. Gosse and his Afghans - The aboriginal members of that expedition would not climb the rock or even approach much of it due to it's deep religious significance).

D. - You actually pay for the privilege already in your daily park fee. "'Supervised' paid walks will become the norm" - I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere in any reporting? You are obviously linked in to the Uluru future strategy planning committee better than I (and most) by the sound of it because if you're not, your point would not be "absolutely real" and simply a matter of conjecture (or bullshit more generally lol).

Cheers

The view from my mountain is better than from Ayers rock anyway Mick.

So good in fact that I put a 4wd track up to it.

Now theirs an idea - you could then get up and back so quick the toilet problems would be minimized.

'Owing' land is a western thing. I was told by an elder on an aboriginal induction that Australia's original inhabitants are *custodians* of the land. The concept of 'owing' land is not part of their culture, its the other way round, the land owns them.

Being custodians, I would agree that there are some cultural significant places for them which should be respected by all. But its not quite the same as 'owing' the land which entitles one to lock people out.

If the original inhabitants would lead by example and truly look after the land and treat it respectfully themselves I feel such exclusion requests would be viewed more favorably.

Sadly, the mess I have seen left behind where they camped near the Canning stock route (I saw them leaving) and in their seasonal camps in the Kimberleys were absolutely disgusting. Let alone the rusting car bodies left on access roads, fringe camps, etc.

If they want everybody to respect the land they must do that themselves.

Yes the real aborigines don't own anything they never have they belong to the land yet they still can claim land rights etc which is hypocritical of what their traditional beliefs are suppose to be but as usual anything can be twisted around to suit.
No it's ok to leave rubbish and dumped car bodies behind and the rubbish and mess in some communities. I'll still never forget driving through Bloomfield in the early 2000 what a mess rubbish in yards blow up against fences not just a small amount either it was a big disappointment to me I was looking forward to visiting a proclaimed paradise. It's their right their just giving back to the land and your suppose to over look these things and not bring it to others attention you may be labelled a racist.

That is what they say but not what happened - all the different clans and tribes had their own territory and if someone from another tribe crossed "their" land without approval there was a good chance they would be killed.

Sorry they did own land, with borders just like we do - they just do not admit to it.

You would have to go the big bucks and pitch for Sydney Cove. Another 50 to 100 years and you will have a raft of indigenous multi millionaire land barons when they get their act together. I don't mind that either, it may as well be them as entitled stuck up white fellas.

I guess the next generation will just do it on their iphones

Exactly my thoughts I for one won.t waste my time an effort goin there
See how they like the lack of tourist dollars
Stuff em mechoete

The Director of National Parks looks after the insurance policy.

Apparently Tony most of the deaths at Ayers rock have been from heart attacks.

You would have to wonder how many might have been preventable if a positive approach was taken towards climbers.

E.G. Escorted walks up it !

Came across this - so many Tossers are climbing the rock:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-01/uluru-a-history-of-disrespect-atop-the-rock/9107750

I definitely think there should be an exemption for strippers.

I have visited The "Rock' only once.

As I approached Uluru I experienced a feeling I have never felt before in any of my Australian or European travels.

I am not a spiritual or religious person but could feel something.

Did I have to climb the Rock to experience that? No. Did i climb the rock? No.

I didn't because the traditional owners had expressed their desire that we respect their wishs.

My wife and my 2 boys climbed, understanding why I didn't.

Would they do the climb now?
I doubt it because they have travelled this great land further and now have a better understanding of Traditional culture and an understanding of place.

Will I visit again? certainly, and not being able to climb will not take away how I feel about Uluru.

William

"I didn't because the traditional owners had expressed their desire that we respect their wishes."

And this is exactly why we didn't climb it.

Cheers,

Mark

The view from a top the rock is quite impressive also....i get that there's people that don't want to climb the rock and yes there is pretty scenery walking around it....but part of the attraction for many other visitors is the chance to climb the rock also, something many people miss the chance of doing when it's closed so often. The climb doesn't interest you in the same way a Segway tour holds no real interest to me...so maybe we should ban Segway tours also?...i know that's a silly comment to make, but people need to understand that climbing the rock is part of the major reason many people go there for. If it's outlawed I'll abide by the rule, but whilst it's legal I'll be happy to take my family there and do it...just a shame it's so far away to get there and it's a good chance of being closed for climbing, just like last time I was there with my family. I'm currently making plans for a possible visit next year hoping my kids can climb like I have done years ago, after the climb is closed I'll have no interest myself in taking my family back there.

Do you really believe the crimes you listed are limited to the indigenous population?
We have certain percentage of people who partake in anti-social behaviour, but that is not limited to one section of the community. It is not only 'white fellas' who pay taxes or give back to the community. There are people with varying cultural backgrounds that need assistance from time to time.

'Our mob" need to acknowledge that having less than pristine neighbourhoods is not limited to remote Australia. I have seen too many of our mob leaving rubbish at campsites, burning timber collected in National Parks, and treating the Australian bush like it was their's alone to have much respect for many of them.

I have climbed Uluru, but that was way before the request to not climb it. I plan to visit again soon but I will not climb it, out of respect.

If you worked out the crime on a % basis it would be a lot higher than normal.

So are you going to provide the statistics or are you guessing?

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that Indigenous people accounted for 25 percent of Australia's prison population in 2009.[3] The age-standardised imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 1,891 people per 100,000 of adult population, while for non-Indigenous people it was 136, which meant that the imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 14 times higher than that of non-Indigenous people. The imprisonment rate for Indigenous people had increased from 1,248 per 100,000 of adult population in 2000, while it remained stable for non-Indigenous people.[4]

Indigenous Australians and crime

True or not? I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information. But I think it does back up the commonly held opinion.

It is true that the indigenous population are over represented in prison. What that statistic fails to indicate is the likelihood of being given a warning, a good behaviour bond, or being found not guilty. All of these scenarios favour the non-indigenous population.

Incarceration rates not surprisingly correspond with financial status. White collar criminals who can afford good legal representation do not often serve prison time and if they do it is not, I'm my opinion, commensurate with the crime.

We live in a country of haves and have nots. There are many good people, there are some 'bad' people. What we should not do is try to generalise about any group of people.

This all started with a discussion about the banning of climbing of Uluru. In Canberra you can no longer walk on top of Parliament House. Where's the protest?

Let's agree to disagree about the relative merits of closing the climb. Let's not judge a whole section of the community based on the actions of a few. Let's try to get along and stop getting upset about something that really makes little difference to our experience of life, and the future of our society.

Guessing, and guessed right.

Respect is a word far to often used , respect needs to be earned , how about the rip-off at the gift shop ,a 6' long skinny stick with 2 dabs of paint at 1 end for eyes selling as the 'Dreamtime snake' for the grand sum of $2000.... no joke.... what do you call a boomerang that won't come back ? A STICK.

Hundreds of thousands of people have gone up their Nats

Perhaps that's where the lack of empathy resides.

In the long term Will , I think those that shut people out of the countries natural wonders are shooting themselves in the foot.

The issue I have Stefandsal is no one should own or monopolize the unique parts of our world , its national parks who are supposed to preserve and protect them , and not cater to the wishes of a minority group.

Robyn, did you actually re-read your comment before you pressed submit?

The traditional owners were give their land back by a court that was appointed by a government that was elected by a majority.

Did you complain when Lord Alistair McAlpine bought up most of Broome and El Questro station? This little skunk of a man turned El Questro station into a money making over priced tourist attraction for the well to do, sure the plebs could camp there at a premium and use Zebedee springs until mid day. Because after mid day it was set aside for the privacy of the well to do.

If you want to have a whinge about people owning a monopoly on a unique place have a bitch about that.

I love the next line.
Its national parks who are supposed to preserve and protect them.

That is exactly what they are doing, they are preserving and protecting the cultural values of the rock. You may not know this but Uluru is dual-listed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Area for outstanding natural values and outstanding cultural values.

Given that only 16% of recent visitors wanted to climb the rock and most comments on this and other social media forums are in favour of closing the climb or at the very least respect the decision, leaves you in the minority.

Anyway after reading all your unsubstantiated replies,I get the impression that you will fight to be right and if need be argue with a light post just to get your ill informed message across.

I also loved the post above about turning up for a second visit and not being able to find the start of the climb to the top, the start hasn't moved since it was put there and unless you are blind you can see it from about 5 kms out.

Fun Fact: The local saying for people climbing the rock, they look like Minga meaning ANTS.

I thought it was 16% of visitors to the rock climbed it, not wanted to climb it...and that figure is that way purely due to how often the climb is closed when visitors are there. Not so sure all social forums are saying they are in favour of closing it, replies I read elsewhere commented on how disappointed they are the climb was closed when they were there. I also saw a NT news article claiming something like 5 out of 7 NT locals wanted the climb to remain open, so that is opposite to your claims....statistics are easy to trot out though, and can be skewed to say what someone wants them to do.
Regardless of what I wrote above, the TO's have the right to do as they please, but not everyone will be happy about that. I've already stated earlier I will have no reason to want to go back there if i can't climb the rock, only time will tell if I'm in the minority of people or not....once the access to climb is permanently closed, it will be interesting to see if visitor numbers drop off at all or stay the same.

If the majority had been informed of the governments future plans on this subject before the election I doubt they would have been elected.
Dave.

We do have the opportunity to protest about minority groups monopolizing the unique parts of our country Michelle , this is where divisions between groups begins.

I would equally argue against some billionaire buying manly beach or whatever and excluding the rest of us.

Many people including myself can make a judgement about their actions based on what they believe is the right thing to do.

We don't all have to wait until someone in authority makes a rule before we act responsibly.

I have been to Uluru and respected the custodian's wishes but enjoyed a wonderful walk around this special place.

If some feel the need to climb,try a few granite lumps like Beringbooding Rock outback of Mukinbudin. We did,great place also Elachbutting Rock.

Just as well we don't ban everything where bad behaviour may have occurred Iza - still on the other hand if we did it would certainly ease the traffic situation in our cities.

The Rock is hardly on it's own in the boat of inappropriate places people take a dump, i'd be very surprised if the cleaners at the War Memorial couldn't give a similar story or 2 sadly. How many times have we read on this forum of the disgusting toilet habits of others that people have encountered at varioius locations through out the country, The Rock is just one of many places this occurs at unfortunately

So the T/Os are worried about a few taking a pee or a poop up top , pray tell where their ancestors did it when on their 'religious climbs' that they are so worried about .

Did traditional Aboriginals ever climb Uluru? I think not.

Thats just it 'Motherhen' , if one looks into the verbal history of the so called owners you get 3-4 different stories of the significance of the rock , 1 mob says young fellas were made to climb as a part of manhood initiation , another mob says climbing was for male elders only , a 3rd mob says the caves /overhangs were for 'secret' woman's business , another mob says it was a sacred meeting place for tribes Australia wide and other elders say 'its just a bloody big rock' of no real significance ........Watch and see , as soon as the climbing is fully banned , signs and 'bookings' will open for 'supervised and guided climbs' as a $$$$$ making enterprise.

As they appear to be one of the laziest mobs around I'm not surprised they didn't climb it. If that is the truth.

I don't believe Aboriginal people were rock climbers. It was climbed by their spirit ancestors. Whether it was climbed on any ceremonial occasions or not, I am not in a position to assess.

They lived a harsh life as desert nomads in a country where food and water was scarce, and that would have dominated. Their cultural stories were strong. They have a very different life today.

Alloy, you've asserted a few times now about it being re-opened as a "paid climbing venture" in the future.

Personally, I doubt it, but who knows you may proved to be correct, perhaps you have the "inside running" and further information on this, perhaps you are simply speculating...

But why would they wait until it is closed in 2019 to do it?

Surely, the indigenous owners could do it now, or anytime over the past 30-plus years that it has been back under their control if that was the intent?

And on the different stories on the significance of "The Rock"...

I have gleaned from my interactions with aboriginal people over the years that unless you are a "black-fella" who is entitled to know certain information, you will never be told the story. That is their way...

Human nature suggests that truth will never get in the way of a good story, and maybe that is why so many stories abound...!

For me, I'll respect the right of the Anangau people to make a determination, at the end of the day, like it or not they get to make the rules.

I get it that some are unhappy with the decision that has been made, but a review of this thread indicates there are an equal amount of people that are either indifferent or who welcome the decision.

Maybe the pressures of living in the 21st Century are such that for many there are plenty of things one could get all "head-up" about - for me and evidently others, this isn't one of them...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

I think Peter that we are concerned about the lack of access to our countries unique natural wonders, and the negative image it gives to those doing same, not about wether we can climb some man made object.

On the other hand (being a professional engineer) I think we should ban all non-engineers from climbing Sydney harbours bridge on the basis that they wouldn't appreciate the engineering involved in its construction.

Robin, no one is being denied access to Uluru by this decision, the only thing that changes in October 2019 is you won’t be able to climb it...

I think it is worth keeping that in mind.

But on the Sydney Harbour bridge climb, I have little doubt that if there were the same number of deaths (36) as there have been from falls on Uluru you wouldn’t be allowed to climb it either...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

That's the point Baz - many will be denied the challenge of an adventure and the achievement (as per Michelle above) with their kids or friends and will also retain resentment when we should be building bridges not tearing them down !


By the way the majority of deaths are not falls but heart attacks , many not even on the rock.

Hi Robin

Plenty of challenges exist in Australia if climbing is your thing, in fact much in your own backyard in Victoria.

On resentment, it is a word we've removed from our vocabulary - we find you live a much better life if you don't go around resenting things or others regardless of the circumstances...

But on the majority of deaths on the rock, if you want to add in heart attacks resulting from climbing 'the rock' the number increases as a ten-fold multiple of the number I quoted. From what I've seen on visits to Uluru there are a lot of people climbing it blissfully unaware of the risks they are taking without the right precautions...

A day would not go by without someone doing injury to themselves. Mind you, I'm all for adventure and have an outlook quoted below, but that isn't to say I am cavalier about it either.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

'So many rocks, hills and streams throughout Australia have creation, dreamtime or the dreaming stories and significance.'

Funny how all these significant sites pop up when development is attempted.
Ahh, but give me a fistfull of money and it will be OK.

Anyway is the tooth fairy real. The dreamtime stories (such a nice description) are just a childish view of the world.

The Dreaming may seem like childhood stories to us, "why is it so" stories about creation, but every culture and religion is based on a version of creation. I respect each one in their belief, even if it is different to mine.

Well said Motherhen

I am about half way through "Sapiens - a brief history of humankind", a book that has been acclaimed around the world and been translated into more than 30 languages.

Every cultural group has had their creation stories, their shared myths that give them the means to operate as a cohesive group in the pursuit of a common future. We are no different.

Jen and I intend to travel to Canberra to see an exhibition at the National Museum on "Songlines: Tracking the Seven Sisters" which is on until the 25t of Feb 2018.

For those of you who can't make it, there was an excellent article by Paul Daley in the Guardian on 16/09/17 - "Songlines at the NMA: a breathtaking triumph of 21st century museology"

Cheers
Andrew

Ah I've read that book too!

That assumes that the people of the NT own it. They do not, there's your stumbling block and the reason there should be no complaints about the decision. I've climbed it back in the day before all this ruckus, anything religious falls on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned, it's hogwash. Ownership and people's right to control their little part of the world is however a big deal for me. Therefore I must respect their disappointing decision. I have to admit that the dreamtime baloney seems a rather comical reason for it in my mind. Also, the current guilt trip situation is fairly wishy washy, I'm glad a firm decision has been made.

Life is about setting goals and striving to achieve Sastra , those who don't just get left behind.

Have done a helicopter flight and gotta say I preferred to do the climb, seemed more rewarding to me then just sitting in a seat looking out the window, and was a heck of a lot cheaper to do also....but each to their own. A shame the flights have to stay so far away from certain areas also, but atleast that means when you climb the rock you don't have helicopters buzzing directly above you, so that's a plus.

I don't mind getting a helicopter and landing at the top , if it helps things out.

Hundreds of thousand of people have climbed Ayers rock John/Lynne, just as many would climb it in the future if they could , but in your words some don't give adam for another cultures beliefs.

Where did you hear that, or have you seen it for yourself ?

Greg, not only have I heard it from a reliable source (a family member who works as a marine biologist specialising in coral reef studies), but I have also seen it in a flight from Townsville to the tip of Cape York in August this year.

The top 2 thirds (approx 1500 kms) of the GBR has suffered major coral bleaching in the past 2 years bought about by global warming causing an increase in sea temperature. On top of back to back record sea temperatures in 2016/2017, the reef in places where very little or no bleaching occurred was hit by Cyclone Debbie in March this year, a large slow moving extreme weather event that had a devastating effect.

We can't do anything to lessen the impact of cyclones on the reef, but it is certainly within the power of the human race to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere which is the principal cause of global warming - no other critter on the planet is going to do it.

Dusty

The planet earth has never been the same temperature over millions of years. Over time sometimes it is getting hotter and sometimes it is getting cooler, nothing new here.

Chris

Didn't the aborigines get here by walking over land?

That was before the water levels rose?

Wasn't that thousands of years ago?

They must have had some huge fires to cause the ice to melt back then.

and here's me thinking they had respect for the environment.

"...........sometimes it is getting hotter and sometimes it is getting cooler, nothing new here."

And here I was thinking that the majority of the planets climate scientists had got it right that we have contributed to global warming in a big way with increased carbon emissions and you had the answer all along, Idler Chris.

Hmmm, you should have spoken out earlier.

Dusty

Dusty, looks like you're out of your league mate!
There appears to be many Mensa members on this forum. Doh!

My theory is that the last great climate change was caused by dinosaurs farting. It doesn't matter how the carbon is dispersed....

All I ask from the believers in climate change is, which part of the Industrial Revolution was responsible for the Ice Age?

It was likely before camping refrigerators were popular and there used to be all those ice works places about that you could go buy your ice from. I myself don't think it's a coincidence that the earth warming up has happened at the same time the ice works businesses have disappeared

You appear to have the bull by the tail Shaker. Studies (based on relatively sketchy data compared to todays very well researched climate information and models) suggest that pollution from the industrial revolution (on a planet with far fewer people and far less CO2 production) may have helped end the Little Ice Age - or at least affected glaciers.
*IF* you and other skeptics really want to understand the arguments, issues, and state of the science I suggest that you spend a few hours regularly reading the skepticalscience.com website, including some of the discussion on more contentious points (in thecomments below the myth explanations).
The Little Ice Age is covered here: Little Ice Age.
It's "all a natural cycle" was one of the first myths exposed - that's head in the sand (or vice-versa) stuff.

This thread is about the closing of the Rock to walkers. It has nothing to do with global warming, dinosaurs farting or the reef - yes all important topics in their own right but not all that relevant to climbing the Rock.

Thanks William P. We'd have never known without your comment. Threads take many twists and turns and often the most interesting are those which open our eyes to new information. I was simply correcting an obviously erroneous statement.

The arguments re the climb have all pretty much been made (other private land restrictions, the indigenous cultural sensibilities, safety etc), one or two with obvious racist overtones, but for the record I think it's no big deal and the traditional owners are quite within their rights to stop the climb. I've climbed Uluru twice, both well before the request to not do so existed. I didn't go there to climb, I went to experience 'the rock' (and King's Canyon). Very few if any cultural guided tours existed at the time but we also did self-guided perimeter walks to learn what we could about traditional beliefs and customs. Not that it's particularly relevant but Kata Tjuta is a more interesting place imo and afaik you've never been permitted to climb there.

"All over a climb up a flamin' rock!!!!!"

Perhaps it has more to do with the right of all Australians to have access to their country without having to pay or apply for a permit.
Dave.

.
See what I mean?

No.? See what I mean. :)
Dave.

Now Allan - don't do what some others have done and downplay it.

It isn't just a rock - its "the" rock , argueably the most significant rock in the world and this is the key reason why hundreds of thousand of people have climbed it.

"Life is about setting goals and striving to achieve Sastra , those who don't just get left behind."
Survivor -Top Crossing Hut Trk
Robin Miller

Sounding very much like setting goals and striving to achieve them is causing Robin and many other "would be climbers" a great deal of heartache.

Let's all have a great big cry and whinge about all the places on station properties which are no-go zones because they said keep out.

This has been said before on this thread without response from the Sherpa Tenzings.

Robin...

Reading your most recent post on the topic one could be forgiven for thinking you have ‘jumped camp’ - you are right, it is one of the most significant rocks in the world, both from a physical and spiritual presence in the eyes of many...

Your understanding possibly goes some way to explaining why many have no issue with the decision made...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

While "many" may have no issue with the decision Baz I think you might find the majority have.
Dave.

What majority? A majority of what group in the population? What reputable research produced the statement that the "majority" decry the right of traditional and legal owners to control their own property even if it is this rock? Some responders seem to suggest that denying entry to property by station owners, mining companies or householders is acceptable but not if they are aboriginal! Why would that be? Lynne

It isn't France that's making that proposal Baz , its a French company that has already listened to others and has made such changes as ensuring the wind farm is not visible.

So why have not the custodians of Ayers rock not , and by your own logic, - failed to do the same and seek a compromise.

After all they can't even see this 1 little walking track !



" Maxime Louage, Engie Green project leader, told la Voix du Nord: "We had lots of feedback linked to the memorial. So we moved the project to the South by several hundred metres. When you enter the site, you won't see the wind farms contrary to what was initially planned."

Hi Robin

I'll take that as a "yes" that you are happy to endorse development of the Bullecourt site in France.

I would suggest most Australian's wouldn't find a compromise of any kind acceptable, whether it is visible or not. But I'll leave it for others to agree or disagree with my assertion.

On Uluru, there has been compromise over a long period of time, 30-years in fact in which the climb has been allowed. In the meantime many other experiences at Uluru have been developed.

But how do you compromise on climbing the rock? It is a bit like being part pregnant, you either are or you aren't - you either allow the climb or you don't, hard to find any middle ground on that one...!

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Ps: my opening line was a "French Company...!" But before we go congratulating Engie on listening, let's put this company in an Australian perspective...

News out this week..."Days before the carbon tax took effect on July 1, 2012, French energy giant Engie transferred $1 billion in dividends out of Australia and back to UK parent companies."

Robin and I and all other Australian's funded this dividend through lost taxation revenue...now isn't that an irony, we could be seen to be contributing to the funding of this proposal at Bullecourt.

Thanks Crackles , that lines up with my own experience from early 80's.

When on top of the rock we also had an F-111 do a single loop around it .

"..........our grandchildren will not be able to experience those unreal views and the beauty of stand on top of Australia's most famous rock."

Your grandchildren will miss out on lots of things that you and previous generations experienced, Stephen. That is just one of the facts associated with the passage of time. Things change and some things cease to exist - it is the way of the ever-changing world that we live in and your grandchildren will most likely experience things that you haven't and their grandkids never will.

Dusty

Every "religion" mashes things up to suit its agenda. With a bit of luck, our great grand children will be experiencing moon rocks first hand as a tourist experience. I'm a bit sorry I won't get to see what religion claims ownership of that experience.

Unfortunately the fact that aboriginal elders did not speak against climbing the Rock 50 years ago is not really relevant to what the aboriginal owners say today! Rightly or wrongly the current rules can be made by today's owners. After all many things that were once accepted or at least overlooked in any society 50 years ago are now frowned upon or even illegal. Also 50 years ago the elders had not been recognised as legal owners and would probably not have spoken up to an authority figure but told him what he wanted to hear. Lynne

Hi Lynne

Can I please point out a few things, without this looking like an argument here on the forum.

Firstly, Aboriginals never own land, as in white mans terms, but are in fact custodians of the land, which is handed down from one family and tribe generation to the next and has been carried out for thousands of years. The only times this changes is when one tribe invades a neighbouring tribe to gain access to better land for hunting and to increase the power of the invading tribe.

How do I know this, well because I have many Aboriginal friends and one such friend was born to both Yankuntjatyara and Antakarinja parents that lived in the far north of South Australia. One story that Bobby personally told me was "one day we will get our land back"

I asked what did he mean by this statement, as his tribal land is now in the very large northern part of the state in the APY Lands (which I would presume you know where they are ) and in all run by the Traditional Owners of that area.

No he said, way back in time ( this in our white mans times was in the very early 1900's ) that Pitjantjatjara mob raided our lands and stole my country. According to Bobby, the Pitjantjatjara were only a small clan, but a very fierce mob, while Bobby's mob where far bigger in size, but not strength. Yes Aboriginals are all Black, but there was still a great hatred between rival clans and not living in harmony as many would want to believe.

Traditional Aboriginal Law is never changed to suit modern day times, and is past from one lot of initiated men to the next lot of young initiated men to kept the Law alive and active. Those that have never gone through Aboriginal Business, regardless of age and only know as boys and are never told of the Family Dreaming Stories and the special Law. If that Law was past down from their ancestors, the so called modern day Elders would still be all reading from the very same page, and not one made up by none initiated Elders, or so called white do gooders that think they are doing the right thing.

Ayers Rock was never a traditional home for Aboriginals from that area, but a place of significance for Traditional " Mens and Womens " Business. That is why the true Elders that Keith had contact with, had no concern about climbing the Rock. They were never pressured to say what they said, as the National Parks Rangers wanted to learn as much about their history as they could, so that they could preserve that important thoughts of the Elders. Are you also aware that Ayers Rock first became a National Park back in 1950, when there were still many family groups living out in the Western Deserts in a true Aboriginal Hunter & Gatherer lifestyle, something that they and their ancestors had done so for countless thousands of years. Over the generations, a lot of Law has been lost and even the Elders do not have the respect from the younger people in their groups. If the so called young people had the respect for their Land and Elders, they would not carry on like they do, and in fact if they carried on like they do 100 years ago, many of them would have been speared by the Elders for showing no respect.

I could keep going, but you can see that I have personal contacts, both Black and White that tell their story and not relying on so called modern day talk.



Stephen

Hi Stephen - we are just back from another very successful Bonz lead Pyrennies camp and I note your reply.

I have always felt this was a thin edge of the wedge setup which is already having negative consequences. So Sad !

ahh, the Powers that Be - always one step ahead of me :-)

Boroma 604.For some reason your van appears to be bigger on the outside than the inside. How is this possible.
Dave.
As per the Doctor. :)

Gooday David M,
As you will see where it says Roadstar Vacationer on the bottom of my reply, Preceding Word is Classifieds, yes that one is 17ft 6 inches and is for sale in the Classifieds. Great condition, fully equipped with Solar and ready for some lucky person to hit the road straight away.

The one in the Photo is our current caravan which we are Keeping is 20Ft or 6.4 metres. Hope that clears that up.
Cheers,
Boroma604.

Hi Boroma

I think you have got it in 1 line , by forcing views on someone else ->



"its just another wedge in the Them & Us saga."