Climbing Ayers Rock (Uluru)

Submitted: Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 13:00
ThreadID: 70488 Views:5786 Replies:27 FollowUps:58
This Thread has been Archived
It seems that the climb might well be a thing of the past pretty soon.
I have heard (on ABC radio) that after 25 years of "traditional" ownership, there are plans under consideration to close the tourist climb to the top of the Rock.
Multiple reasons cited including erosion and lack of toilet facilities, but if you want (or feel the need) to do it - better get ready to do it soon!
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 13:46

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 13:46
Traditional ownership - Erosion???? what a joke


AnswerID: 373596

Reply By: D200Dug- Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 13:49

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 13:49
And about time too, I could never understand why people would want to climb a Uluru. Especially if it offends the local people.

You would not walk into a town and do something that offends the locals why do it out there ?

I have visited Uluru and have never had the slightest desire to climb it especially now you can take so many charter flights and get a better view.
AnswerID: 373597

Follow Up By: Member - Ian H (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:57

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:57
Doug, I expressed exactly your sentiments about 3 years ago and drew fire from all angles but I still hold my and your views. Why do we need to trample over something so special to Aboriginal people and also many of us "white fellas"?
However, if people still wish to climb it then they must carry back down everything, and I mean everything that they took up!
0
FollowupID: 640731

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:36

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:36
I am not Aboriginal but a few of my Aboriginal friends have told me that under my white skin I have a very black heart ! ( I am not sure if that was a compliment though )

Back to the subject at hand though we live besides the entrance to a church school sports oval. The road outside our home is closed to parking during sporting events to make it safer for children accessing the ovals. It is a small narrow lane that easily gets clogged with cars and kids kicking footballs not a safe mix.

It is amazing the number of parents ( sadly many driving large expensive 4WDs ) who still insist on parking in the lane. Explaining "I can park wherever I like!" if they are questioned about their actions.

There seems to be a percentage of the population that thinks they have the god given right to do as they please regardless of the safety, beliefs or feelings of others.

They just seem selfish to me. My bet is they would be the first to complain if someone set up camp in their front yard or parked on their lawns.

For me it just boils down to a matter of respect for the feelings of others.


I think Uluru should be a sacred place for all Australians and treated with the respect it deserves. It is a far more potent symbol of our country to me than any flag banner or man made object.
0
FollowupID: 640737

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:51

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:51
This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Inappropriate Rule .

Forum Moderation Team
0
FollowupID: 640743

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:04

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:04
Ingo57 Thanks for being a perfect example of what I was talking about.

A total lack of respect or caring for other.

Is it any real wonder so many Aboriginal people have so little respect for themselves when they are shown so little respect by others.


0
FollowupID: 640744

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:07

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:07
This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Inappropriate Rule .

Forum Moderation Team
0
FollowupID: 640747

Follow Up By: Member - Fred G NSW - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:46

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:46
Ingo57 last week I saw photos of white rugby league players in similar situations. Your photographic display is hardly what this topic is about.

Fred.
0
FollowupID: 640755

Follow Up By: The Landy - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:31

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:31
The photos certainly show alcoholism for the disease it is.... and that it has no boundaries.

0
FollowupID: 640800

Reply By: Super (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:03

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:03
I agree with D200DUG. We wouldn't accept the indigenous people climbing our cathedrals so why should we think it alright to climb theirs!
Regards,
Phil

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 373600

Follow Up By: get outmore - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:13

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:13
and exactly what the conection is...................................??



while Ularu has spots around it that are sacred but no part of the climb is sacred - theres no point in jumping on some lets not offend anyone bandwagon if you didnt know that
0
FollowupID: 640720

Reply By: Steve - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:08

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:08
I'd say there's a fair bit of tongue biting, judging by the 90 views and 2 replies
AnswerID: 373603

Follow Up By: Rob! - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:15

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:15
How is that statistic different to any other thread? Just say what you have to say. With some care, everybody should be able to do it without offending others."
0
FollowupID: 640721

Follow Up By: Steve - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:51

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:51
This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Personal Attacks Rule .

Forum Moderation Team
0
FollowupID: 640805

Follow Up By: Rob! - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:26

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:26
Nice
0
FollowupID: 642603

Reply By: Rob! - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:09

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:09
Catholics too would be pretty upset if a bunch of muslims climbed all over the alter at St Peter's.
AnswerID: 373604

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:39

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:39
Prove it !!

I doubt whether you can.

It's a rock !!
0
FollowupID: 640870

Follow Up By: Rob! - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 15:53

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 15:53
Well, I was raised as a catcholic and I would be upset if somebody climbed on the alter of St Peter's.

Is that enough proof fro you?

I'll bet that when you go into a church you behave in a different manner to when you go to a pub because you have a cetain respect for this building. But it's just a building as Uluru is just a rock.

For example, I bet the photographer of the image below, did not attampt to stand on the alter to get a better shot. He did not bring beer to drink with him. He was not noisy when inside the church and he did not visit or photograph during mass. He was also restricted to the areas he could walk or photograph.


Having said that, I have no issue of people walking on the rock, because I have no spiritual connection with it, but I imagine it may be different for those that do. So I guess it's all about having that little bit of respect for those around you, wherever you're visiting.
0
FollowupID: 640912

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:41

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:41
I don't go to church, or the pub so no issue ?

And why did you mention Muslims...A little racist against them are you ?
You could've just said "anyone".

And I couldn't care less if someone climbed the Rock, or St peter's....or whether they where a scarf or not. We all have choices in life and my choice at the moment is to ignore you.



0
FollowupID: 640920

Follow Up By: Rob! - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:53

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:53
If you wish to be ignorant, then so be it.

It seems the image link did not work so I'll try it again.


Link to image here
0
FollowupID: 640922

Follow Up By: Rob! - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 08:41

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 08:41
Dunco,

1. If you don't visit churches why are you taking credit for the above photo?

2. Are you upset that the Chaser team attempted to climb a church?

Cheers
R
0
FollowupID: 642563

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:31

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:31
Hey Rob,

You have waited a while to get another shot in mate. Oh well, good for you.

And yes, I took the photo and I "visited" a church built in 1314 as a photographer, not as a worshipper. And thanks for visiting my web site

0
FollowupID: 642583

Follow Up By: Rob! - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:24

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:24
I though I'd let things settle and the number of people reading this thread diminish.

That's what this is all about. People visiting. Whether it is Uluru or a church. It's about about having respect for the places and the people you are visiting.
0
FollowupID: 642601

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:29

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:29
Good excuse.

We live in a free society and thereby, we should be allowed choices...unless it is illegal.

It becomes annoying when others try to push their beliefs onto those that they talk to.

I am not pushing my beliefs...you do whatever you want to do, and let medo what I want. Now go away and do what you want to do.







0
FollowupID: 642606

Follow Up By: Rob! - Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:36

Monday, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:36
Great that's what I wanted to hear. A clear answer. Therefore it's ok then for the chaser team to climb a church, or for a photographer to stand on a church altar to get a good shot because that's what they choose to do and it is not illegal.
0
FollowupID: 642609

Reply By: The Geriatric Gypsies - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:27

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:27
the day they close off the climbing is the day they will kiss the tourist dollars goodbye and we will have more to support

i have climbed it because it was a challenge to me

it seems if there is a dollar involved sometimes it becomes more sacred

steve
AnswerID: 373608

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:16

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:16
Just a bit contradictory don't you think? First you say closing it will stop income, then you say if there are dollars involved it becomes more sacred!
0
FollowupID: 640732

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:41

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:41
What money are you talking about ??

You don't have to pay to climb the rock, just $25 to enter the park...for 2 days.
And I doubt that everyone that pays to enter the park, climbs the rock !!!

0
FollowupID: 640871

Reply By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:47

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:47
Another "thin edge of the wedge" in my opinion.....Arnhem Land being another example......

For goodness sake, if "they" can claim that the rock is their traditional ground, then it follows that they could legitimately claim the whole country as "theirs" in a traditional sense. So, it could follow that "they" could tell the vast majority of this country's inhabitants that they may not walk on ANY part of their country. What about if "they" say that the whole Mount Kozi' region is sacred ground (say anything higher up than Jindabyne) and that they want that closed off....... or what about Sydney Harbour region and it's surrounds? We know for a fact that the original inhabitants of this country lived in that region and (presumably) had various cultural traditions and ceremonies that were carried out there prior to 1770..... Does that mean that "they" can tell us all to POQ away from Sydney?

Seriously, what is this country coming to? Erosion???? Yes, well, I suppose if a million people a year climbed the rock for next 1,000,000 years, there may be some modicum of erosion caused by all those feet!!!! How ridiculous!!!!

I mentioned Arnhem Land above. If I try to drive into that region I will be in deep doo-doos. Same goes for Surveyor-General's Corner and numerous other isolated places. Is this not a form of discrimination? What would happen if we put up a huge sign on every road leading into Adelaide (or other city), stating that it is illegal for you to enter this region unless you meet certain criteria relating to your heritage?????

Hmmmm, I think I've gone far enough for one rant......

Roachie
AnswerID: 373610

Follow Up By: png62 - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:23

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:23
I'm with you Roachie - WHAT FREE COUNTRY ????

"They" (actually all Aussies) can walk or drive past or camp near my place any time night or day and don't need months of planning and permit chasing to do so.

Not political correctness - b!@@&y kow towing, not enough cajones to make a wise decision in favour of the majority, not to mention discriminating against me.

Nah - don't really feel better for the rant, but I will continue to climb Ayers Rock whenever I am up that way.

0
FollowupID: 640726

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:29

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:29
Good points too

In the Arnhem land example you can fish from one side of the river, in Kakadu, but not cross the barrage and fish on the other bank, in the same river, to catch the same fish, but you can pay to go there
Image Could Not Be FoundMaîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 640727

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:04

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:04
This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Inappropriate Rule .

Forum Moderation Team
0
FollowupID: 640745

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:55

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:55
Ingo57, those are about as offensive a set of posts as I have seen. Everybody, including indigenous Australians, finds scenes like the one's you have posted distressing. Nobody argues that the scenes are not real, they are. And they show exactly what happens when you destroy a people's pride, self respect and culture. LOL.
0
FollowupID: 640758

Follow Up By: Batboy - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:58

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:58
This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Inappropriate Rule .

Forum Moderation Team
0
FollowupID: 640761

Reply By: get outmore - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:54

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 14:54
I climbed it and dont and never will see anything wrong with that.
It is a natural formation that predates any life let alone indigenous australian life by so long it makes humans seem insignificant.
I climbed it for the same reason I climbed mt bruce, mt meharry, peak charles, mt ragged, frenchmans peak, mt mary, mt wudinna, etc etc and for the same reason im going to climb mt Augustus

- to see what i can see from the top
Thats what hills, mountains are for , not for overregulating for ANY reason
AnswerID: 373613

Reply By: Member - Fred G NSW - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:18

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:18
Image Could Not Be FoundWhen we went there in May the first thing that became obvious to us was a thin white line quite visible up the face of it. Later we discovered to our dismay that it was the designated climbing track.
We had no desire to climb it, albeit the climb was closed due to rain, I wasn't about to become statistic # 36 with my crook ticker.
I can understand the dollar factor, but the rock is showing signs of the climbers and to us that took something from it's attraction, sort of commercialised it.
However many people out there were disappointed that it was closed for the day, as they came all that way to climb it.
BTW we thought the $25 per head to get in was a bit how-do-ya-do, and then you can't photograph the locals or certain sites.Image Could Not Be Found
Anyone that hasn't seen the climb track, it's bloody steep.
AnswerID: 373615

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:51

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:51
Yes, you can see the change of colour where people have been walking. However, this would be just the colour of the foot traffic (shoes) that has "temporarily" stained the face of the rock.

In the same way that our foot-prints in the sand on the beach are soon washed away, those discolorations would soon disappear off the rock if people ceased walking..... I don't believe for one millisecond that it could be considered as ersoion.

I climbed it back in 1990 and when we went there again a few years ago, my 3 sons climbed it........ I wasn't game to have another go for fear of having a heart attack or just plain running out of breathe etc. Had I been a bit younger and fitter, I would have loved to have walked up there again.

I also agree wholeheartedly that no person or group of people could possibly claim that they have more ownership with a rock which has existed for eons.

The parrallel drawn by some (above) that it would be comparible to a "foreign" group climbing a church steeple etc is totally different. In the case of a church or mosque or similar, these are man-made structures which legitimately DO belong to those whom have paid for and constructed them.

Ayers Rock (BTW, I refuse to use that other name) is a natural phenomonen and belongs to no one religion or group of people.

Roachie



0
FollowupID: 640730

Follow Up By: Member - Fred G NSW - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:38

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:38
I agree with most of that Roachie, except I think it's a worn track, and not a stain, and there is a chain and steel stanchions driven into the rock to hold the chain. It will always be Ayers Rock to me as well, just like Arnhem Land, (never heard of Kakadu in the 50's and 60's.) BTW are you happy to pay $25 per head just to get into the park.
Hey, we have a chair lift most of the way up to Kosciusko, that's a pretty special place also, so perhaps they should put one in out there as well to cater for blokes in my condition :-) Think of the money they'd reap in then LOL LOL

Fred.
0
FollowupID: 640738

Follow Up By: get outmore - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:40

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:40
mass , licken and other very small sub flora frow on the surface of rocks - where people have walked so much it has been scuffed off - that is all

good to see this very minimal environmental impact has been well contained as shown by the pick

- lets get a grip every significant hill or mountain in Australia are regulary climbed - they havnt worn down yet
0
FollowupID: 640787

Follow Up By: warfer69 - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 23:55

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 23:55
I'd be prepared to take my runners orrrrff..Also i'd prefer to climb the first pick not the second one lol
0
FollowupID: 640833

Follow Up By: tim_c - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:51

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:51
Fred, the second picture shows that the walking track is in the area *least* affected by erosion. Look at all other parts of that face of the rock and most are all heavily eroded - except the part where the walking track goes. Perhaps we should put a large canopy over it to keep the rain off it since that seems to be a bigger cause of erosion? Let's face it, if it weren't for erosion, Ayers Rock wouldn't be Ayers Rock!

The rock is really granite underneath which is grey in colour. The reason it's red is because the surface has been stained with the dust of the desert. Decades of people walking up the track have simply worn away this 'staining' - but the surface of the walking/climbing track is not lower than the surrounding surfaces (ie. decades of walking/climbing hasn't even made a 'groove').
0
FollowupID: 640877

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:38

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:38
Tim,
Thanks for saying what I was TRYING to say. I reckon it'd take a few million years of people walking up that track to cause even the slightest bit of erosion (if any at all).
It's true that there have been holes made for the staunchons to stand up to hold the grab chain. That is "damage" that has already been done and closing the walk is not going to repair those holes nor is leaving the walk open going to make them any worse.
Roachie
0
FollowupID: 640919

Reply By: Member - John Baas (WA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:52

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 15:52
Be interesting to do a poll on this one. My vote goes with the TO's. Cheers.
AnswerID: 373622

Reply By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:26

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:26
Roachie, all indigenous sacred sites are "natural phenomena". You need a little more understanding re how indigenous people relate to the land.
For what its worth, climbing the rock in itself is not the problem for the local TO, but people killing themselves on the climb is very disturbing to them. Check the plaque at the bottom of the climb re the number who have died up there.
Not sure about how seriously they view erosion, but it is now more than just temporary staining. A real groove is being worn. This is not uncommon on much travelled rock surfaces. Some of the tracks in the Grampians, for example are on the way to being an issue as well.
AnswerID: 373627

Follow Up By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:39

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:39
How many people have died there?


Shane
0
FollowupID: 640739

Follow Up By: Member - Fred G NSW - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:47

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:47
35

Fred.
0
FollowupID: 640741

Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:22

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:22
about 80... Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 640782

Follow Up By: tim_c - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:55

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:55
"Some of the tracks in the Grampians, for example are on the way to being an issue as well."

An issue? In what sense? Is it that serious even if a shallow groove is worn by people walking? It's not like the rock is getting so thin that it's about to split in two! And besides, right next to these 'walking grooves' are usually far deeper grooves cut by rainwater - perhaps we should build a large canopy to keep the rain off as well?
0
FollowupID: 640878

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:13

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:13
Human tracks are certainly wearing rocks away noticeably and considerably faster than natural erosion. I was just responding to the comments that seemed to think the marks were only staining. Let's face it, we have only been subjecting our park walking tracks to these levels of wear for a very short time. It's the great contradiction of tourism isn't it. I want to go to see pristine areas that haven't been turned into Disneyland like marked, worn "footpaths", but so does everyone else. Nope, I don't want these areas locked away, but we do have a responsibility to manage them carefully. In the fifty years that I have visited the Grampians, tracks like "Wonderland" clearly have worn heavily. Perhaps I should have said "Arapiles" in the southern Grampians where wear and tear is an issue for climbers.
0
FollowupID: 640881

Reply By: briann532 - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:49

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 16:49
Oh well here goes.............

I understand respect to be a 2 way street.
I respect their right to uphold their beliefs, but they need to respect my right to have the freedom associated with our culture.
to say its "their" country is about as racist as one can get.
It "Our" country. Belonging to all Australians regardless of race.

"Traditional Ownership" ???? WTF

Who originally inhabited Sudan? What about the Maldives?
England?, America, Jamaica? Poland, etc etc...
I originally owned a piece of land in Baulkham Hills.
It been sold. Yes I hold some traditional sentimentality to it, but it now belongs to someone else. Ownership changes. get over it!
Perhaps the path of ownership is ominous as land was "stolen", but stolen from who. Aboriginal culture does not believe in land ownership. The land is viewed as its own spiritual entity.
History is frought with records of invasion all over the world. Its what society did in the past. I accept it was probably not right or just, but it was the way it was.
We can't view it as wrong, as at the time it was considered right. Politcally correctness was not even born.
We have evolved. Hopefully for the better.
Don't judge the past, but look to the future.

Perhaps a bit of mutual respect is what is needed.
If tourism and iconic enjoyment is considered necessary or wanted, then let people climb it. After visiting, I believe people respect the sacred areas and do the right thing when asked. By the same token, the aboriginals need to accept western civilisations desire the climb it. It is not "trampled over" as some threads have suggested. Merely walked on in a specific path that has become iconic to our culture. (and by "our" our refer to modern australians, including all black and white)

To refer to muslims climbing all over cathedrals is hogwash. Sure it would upset people if they started scaling the walls or grifity'ing the stained glass windows, but to merely walk the paths and view the tradition with respect and learning, would probably be a good step forward for mutual respect.

I have seen many people walk, view and photograph numerous churches. I do it myself. With respect and dignity.
The same way I climb the rock. With a respect for its cultural, geological and iconic significance.

Open your eyes to some respectful learning.

Ignorance fuels hatred.

Brian
AnswerID: 373632

Follow Up By: you eat the bear - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:15

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:15
Carefully considered and well put, Brian.

However, just to put a dampener on the whole tourism aspect of this discussion -- only about 10% of the visitors actually climb the rock. The rest are happy to walk around the base or take pictures from the car park apparently. So I don't believe that revenue (and employment) is particularly an issue.

I know that this crystallises 2 major issues for me.

1. Over governance.
2. Access rights (see 1 above)

I want to be able to see this fabulous country. All of it.
I want to be able to cook and sit around a campfire too.

Think about this. In Australia we fish (mostly) wherever we have access. Try river fishing in England these days. Every "spot" along the Thames is licensed.

These are all things that I seriously fear my children's children will only be able to experience in a "virtual" sense, through pictures.

Thin end of the wedge? Its already past thin and thickening at a painful rate.

We'll have to see what Peter Garrett's decision is. I hope he's getting balanced advice!

Stephen






0
FollowupID: 640748

Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:29

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:29
Peter Garrett!! Fancy putting him in charge of anything except very average singing and dancing!!! Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 640786

Follow Up By: Steve - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:45

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:45
Aussies need to wake up to the fact that there are much better places to fish (and visit) than London in Britain. Funny thing is, a lot of the rivers around the countryside can only be fished if you are a member of the Prince Albert fishing club or similar. The old gamekeepers are still alive and well.
0
FollowupID: 640801

Reply By: deserter - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:21

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:21
Sorry - but this country is as much mine as it is theirs.
AnswerID: 373635

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:56

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:56
Is that using your rules or theirs ?

0
FollowupID: 640760

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:40

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:40
If a white Kiwi [Hillary] had heard the traditional cry of sacred ground would he have still climbed Mt.Everest ? It is just as sacred to the Nepalese. Ayers rock is Australian and belongs to ALL Australians not just to a few .
AnswerID: 373638

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18
And look at what a filthy garbage dump Mt Everest has become with human waste and excrement surrounding all the major base camps.

Visitors have managed to turn a sacred mountain of mystical significance to the local people into a rubbish dump and public toilet.

A great example of the wonders of western civilization V traditional culture and respect.
0
FollowupID: 641107

Reply By: Member - Trouper (NSW) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:52

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:52
To Roachie and Syeven............Well thoughtout and written

Congratulationg


Trouper
AnswerID: 373639

Reply By: Member - Fred G NSW - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:55

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 17:55
Image Could Not Be Found
AnswerID: 373641

Follow Up By: warfer69 - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 00:01

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 00:01
They can save money there with a new sign...Proud To Be Australasian !
0
FollowupID: 640834

Follow Up By: tim_c - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:25

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:25
Isn't it great how we show our unity with two different flags? And I thought it was only separate COUNTRIES that required seperate flags - explains the "tourist visas" required to traverse aboriginal land I guess...
0
FollowupID: 640925

Follow Up By: warfer69 - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:58

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:58
Hiya Tim

My original reply was (nice to hav that nice fuzzy warm feeling we are all united - not ) but i scrubbed it for Australasian reply,just added another race that's taking over like in New Zealand-Auckland...

0
FollowupID: 640931

Reply By: Travelling Pixie - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:21

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:21
Spoke to some indigenous people in Doomadgee and they visited Uluru and saw no reason not to climb the rock while they were there.

"lack of toilet facilities" makes me laugh if it is true. Would neex explosives to put a drop-hole at the top.

"erosion"? I wonder just how long it takes for the painted line to disappear from footsteps.

AnswerID: 373657

Reply By: ozwrangler - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:28

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:28
From an article in The Age: (from http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/young-australian-tania-major/2007/01/25/1169594432321.html)


"Tania Major, pictured with Prime Minister John Howard, has been named Young Australian of the Year.

Ms Major said she planned to urge people to give each other a fair go. "I want to encourage all Australians to be part of making a difference and giving all people a fair go — indigenous people, people from all sorts of different backgrounds, people of all types, shapes and colours," she said.

"I've travelled the world and we have this identity of giving everyone a fair go, but do we really give a fair go to all Australians? If non-indigenous and indigenous young people come together to learn about each others' cultures, to learn the real history of this country and acknowledge it, this will hopefully improve the way we all interact.""

Watch only the first 20 secs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv6htb2zdRk
4 of her classmates committed suicide, 7 jailed, only 3 out of 15 NOT alcoholics. She's the only one to finish yr12 and go to university.
AnswerID: 373659

Reply By: equinox - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:22

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:22
At least there is a call for public comment.
Make sure you read all of the 186 pages first..lol

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Draft Management Plan - call for public comment






Looking for adventure.
In whatever comes our way.

<<- CSR

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 373671

Reply By: Robin Miller - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:37

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:37
If it happens it would be a real shame, and a guaranteed way to increase the divide between people.

I thought we were all mature enough to accept that natural wonders throughout this country should be set aside in national parks etc, and made available for all to enjoy as they wish.

Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 373682

Reply By: veight - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 23:09

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 23:09
This is the info i got out of todays NT news

Uluru climb to be banned

July 8th, 2009

THE Uluru climb is almost certain to be closed, probably in about two years.

Parks Australia has called for public comment on a plan to ban tourists clambering up the 348m rock.

The plan runs for 10 years.

But Parks Australia head Peter Cochrane today dropped strong hints that Uluru would be closed to climbers sooner rather than later.

The comment period closes in early September.

A final document will then be sent to the Federal Government, which controls the national park.

Mr Cochrane said the tourism industry would then be given at least 12 months to adjust their marketing campaigns.

That means The Rock could be closed by October 1 in 2011, the start of the hot season in Central Australia.

Mr Cochrane said there were three main reasons for banning climbers:

SAFETY - 35 people died in the 25 years to the year 2000, but none have died since climbing restrictions were introduced;

ENVIRONMENTAL damage - the sandstone rock suffers erosion and human waste is washed down into waterholes by rain; and

CULTURE - traditional owners don't like people climbing over something they consider sacred.
AnswerID: 373690

Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:14

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:14
We all have been hearing of the climb being stopped for years now, it wont happen.. Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 640867

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:26

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:26
This is one of those topics that will (almost always) polarise public opinion and, often, allow bigotry to raise its ugly head.

And I’ll preface my post by saying that I have previously visited areas where traditional land owners have requested you do not do so out of respect for their culture.

After reading a post on here regarding a book “Why Warriors lie down and die” I purchased it and found it gave a fascinating insight to aboriginal culture that I was completely ignorant of.

The book gives non-aboriginal people a chance to take a look at the other side of the cultural and language divide. I would recommend it as essential reading for those wanting to make informed decisions about the issues raised on restricting access to cultural areas of significance to Australia’s aboriginal people.

It is easy to say that all Australians should have unfettered access to all parts of our continent, and I’m not suggesting that shouldn’t be the case. However, shouldn’t we at least try and understand both sides of the argument rather than just rolling out the usual plethora of clichés as reasons why we should dismiss the views of the aboriginal community as irrelevant in this day and age?

Cheers
AnswerID: 373727

Follow Up By: Nargun51 - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:22

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:22
Landy

How dare you!

Suggesting that someone actually do a bit of research and form an opinion from the basis of reasoned, educated thought?

Don’t you know that it is every Australian’s right (written into the Constitution and with precedence under common law) to form an opinion based of stereotypes, misconception, ignorance, bias and bigotry and to express this as loudly, simplistically and as often as possible in any forum available.

Forget about the avenues available to register opposition to this and to join, and contribute to, the debate amongst the decision makers. That could mean that they might have to logically and coherently argue their position.

I have no real opinion about climbing the rock one way or the other. Personally, I wouldn’t. This has more to do with the fact that I stand in awe the Australian landscape and sometimes it is more important that the spirit of the land conquer me, rather than me conquer it.
0
FollowupID: 640875

Reply By: Time - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:33

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:33
A few facts to consider. The area is owned by the local TOs and leased back to National Parks. Legally it is "theirs", consider ourselves privileged that permission is given for us to visit.

The TOs do not want people climbing their sacred site (read the signs at the base of the climb).

A good analogy I heard this morning.

Imagine how you would feel if a group of TOs turned up at the Australian War Memorial in an AAT Kings coach and proceeded to climb up and over the memorial because they had no idea or appreciation of how sacred a site it was to "white"Australia.

I have traveled far and wide across Australia and part of the planning has been obtaining permits or permission to traverse certain areas, a pretty simple task. The only areas I have been refused permission where owned and controlled by non Aboriginals.

If you are invited onto my private property I would expect you to respect my wishes on where you can go and what you can do there, simple courtesy really.
AnswerID: 373734

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:53

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:53
Here is yet another attempt to draw a totally unrealistic analogy (I'm referring to comparing the Australian War Memorial to Ayers Rock).

Please try to understand this MAJOR difference:

Ayers Rock is a NATURAL phenomonen.

The Australian War Memorial is a MAN-MADE structure.

In the same way that I don't believe anybody should climb over a mosque or church or synagog (ok I know the spelling's wrong, but I'm too lazy to look it up), I don't believe anybody should climb all over the Australian War Memorial.

However, Ayers Rock is an "item" that has been put there by nature (or by your God if that is what you wish to believe). In the same way that beaches, hills, forests and other glorious and breathtakingly beautiful NATURAL "things" have been placed before all of us to enjoy.

It's a totally different set of circumstances.

Roachie
0
FollowupID: 641185

Follow Up By: Time - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 21:13

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 21:13
You missed the point by a mile.

What I was trying to say is that just because something may have no spiritual significance to you, or me for that matter, doesn't mean it has no spiritual significance to another, man made or otherwise.

To follow your logic no "natural" place is more significant or "spiritual" than another, so why do you bother to leave home to visit anywhere, let alone a rock!

As I said above:

"If you are invited onto my private property I would expect you to respect my wishes on where you can go and what you can do there, simple courtesy really."
0
FollowupID: 641189

Reply By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:44

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:44
Now that my Pics have been moderated and maybe rightfully so.
The pics unfortunately show exactly how the majority in fact are and how they choose to spend there money that the working population give them....In saying this In my travels I have meet Aboriginal tour guides that I couldn't speak more highly of such as last year the tour guide on the Hay River "Chris from Batton Hill camp ground"....Good bloke!! They have made that decision to make something of themselves through there knowledge of the land &/or have joined in with society and got themselves a job in a shop in Alice springs etc. But unfortunately you see the majority hanging around the streets bludging smokes and dollar coins...there choice!!

Last year we drove the Andado Tk and the scenery was breathtaking, definitely some of the most picturesque natural bushland on the edge of the desert, then you drive into the Aboriginal community of Santa Teresa........Holy Crap!!!!! Cars on there roofs cars burnt out rubbish everywhere and for taking the risk of being moderated by pics I also will not state what the young kids were doing on the side of the road.

Actions speak louder than words....good or bad
AnswerID: 373735

Follow Up By: tim_c - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:13

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:13
Well put Ingo - I don't feel so strongly about climbing the rock if it's going to make the difference between cultural respect or not, but there is responsibility on BOTH parties.

For example: It wouldn't take much for them to show a bit of respect for the welfare they receive, including the cars and houses. Is it too much to ask that they respect our culture by not abusing their children/wives? If we are not going to climb the rock in case it gets 'damaged', how about them refraining from willful damage of public facilities (ie. vandalism). I know that none of these things are limited only to aboriginal people, but it does seem that in the aboriginal communities I've passed through in my travels: anything that can be broken is broken. Everything else is constructed from heavy gauge steel or has a steel 'cage' built around it to protect it. And then they're worried about us having a narrow track on a huge rock?
0
FollowupID: 640880

Reply By: tim_c - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 13:11

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 13:11
Ah, the answer is simple (TIC):
a chairlift to the top will prevent the dreaded erosion
a set of porta-loos at the top will answer the 'lack of toilet facilities'
and a viewing platform with a tall perimeter fence will prevent further fatalities.

Best of all, it will create jobs! :)
AnswerID: 373746

Reply By: D200Dug- Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:56

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:56
it is interesting that in my moderated post I asked a question if people would be offended if something they held dear and of cultural and historical significance was desecrated ?

In reply there were threats and schoolyard insults for even asking a question. So people do understand the concept of being disrespectful to something held to be sacred. Apparently they do not understand the concept of being disrespectful to something held sacred by "Other" people.

Some people suggested after my post that I had no regard for the Australian flag and that people "Other" people had fought and died under that flag may I give a little of my family history so those people understand where I came from and why I have no great regard for any National flag including that of Australia.

My family has a proud military history but has never been members of the RSL.

Both my Grandfathers fought on Gallipoli and the western front in WW1.
Three of my Great Uncles did the same one died in the battle of Lone Pine.
My Grandmother was a Red Cross nurse during WW1.
My Father and my 3 uncles served in WW2 so did one of my Grandfathers and 2 of my Great Uncles who had seen service in WW1. My Mother was land Army.

I served in the RAAF and did 3 operational tours in SE Asia ( that I am due decorations for ) My wife is an Ex Army Nursing Sister and my Son Ex Army ending his service with the regiment in Perth.

So I do find it a little offensive to have my heritage and dedication to Australia questioned.

None of my family ever served or fought for a flag, they all served and fought for the idea of a fair go for the underdog, to stop people from being persecuted and for their mates.

This is an idea that I still hold dear and that I use when fighting for a better deal for all service veterans with governments. I am not in good health after being exposed to various chemicals during my service but I still find the time to lobby Government for various causes relating to Military compensation.

If anybody wishes to question my dedication and loyalty please do so after reading this.

I still hold little regard for any flag including the flag of Australia. I show it respect because I know there are people who do care about it and do feel it has a significance for them, ( for reasons I am happy to admit I do not understand )

I just think people are far more important. If I can show respect to others by a simple action, or inaction, then why not do that? God knows in the last 200 years there has been scant respect shown to Aboriginal people. There are so many many rocks in Australia that can be climbed why not climb them and leave Uluru alone just to be a magnificent symbol of Australia ?
AnswerID: 373918

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:02

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:02
You made the accusation... You deal with it

"There are so many many rocks in Australia that can be climbed why not climb them"

Because theres no law against it and it's our rock to climb. Quite simple really


0
FollowupID: 641101

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:49

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:49
D200Dug

There are many small mined Rednecks on this site and your comments have brought them out in droves, some are missing so they must be away. :-)

The insults they make are a sign of where they are in the food chain.. H&C.

Anyway good on you Dug (if that's your name) keep up the good work.

Cheers

Richard Kovac
0
FollowupID: 641144

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:30

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:30
Red necks?? you flyin the American Flag now Richard??

More like there are many Old timer know all's tryin to jam there opinion down everyone elses throat.

"Anyway good on you Dug (if that's your name) keep up the good work"
You guys should get together and have a hug.




0
FollowupID: 641150

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 17:33

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 17:33
one
0
FollowupID: 641161

Follow Up By: Member - Ingo57 (NSW) - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:26

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:26
Yeah what ever tickles your fancy mate!!!

One hug...... whatever floats your boat.
0
FollowupID: 641181

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:57

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 20:57
Two
0
FollowupID: 641186

Reply By: HGMonaro - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:19

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:19
Doug,

the problem is, if 'we' all go climb another rock, that rock will become culturally significant.

regards, Nige
AnswerID: 373943

Follow Up By: HGMonaro - Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:21

Friday, Jul 10, 2009 at 15:21
oops, I assumed you were 'Doug', but you may not be.
0
FollowupID: 641141

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)