climbing Ayers Rock ??

Hi A J
some one mentioned that it could be a liability reason; the risk of being sued in case of an accident?!
JS

Just a slightly off top follow up to JSCHACHER1 "sued" concerns. Recently called now equally as old as me relatives in UK to see how they were weathering their extended snowed in period. They reported that Council had told them not to clear snow from the footpaths in front on their house (they wish they still could) because "ice can more easily form on a cleared path and they could be liable if someone fell and injured etc etc."

The world has gone mad

Benny

it sure has, thanks good I migrated to this beautiful, fascinating, awesome and adventures country in 1982 from Switzerland.
JS

"Recently called now equally as old as me relatives in UK to see how"

Had to read that a few times and still makes me dizzy !! :-)

Hi I also should have included this screen shot from one year earlier.

Cheers

StephenImage Could Not Be Found

Hi Stephen

it is very frustrating, I have spoken to many unhappy travelers while waiting at the base.
I have climbed it in 1982 and it was an experience I shall never forget.
We went out there early as well, however there is always a CLOSED sign. Someone mentioned that we should get a 100 people together and just do the climb...!
But a $5500.00 fine discourages a lot of people.

JS

Is there a walking track around the base still? I haven't walked it since 1994

Hi Royce
What I write was applicable to August 2009 and may be completely changed by now. At that time just past the Sunrise Viewing area, the walking track was closed to past Maggie Springs for yes.."Maintenance". Another very interesting track change is that they were making a new "Sunrise" viewing area and the old one will shut...Why??? It could be anyone guess.


Cheers


Stephen

HI all If you climb Mt everest you climb a sacret site of the nepalise people but they let you as long as you show respect if you want to climb the rock just do it .the planet belongs to all to explore yours PK

The Nepalese do take a USD$10000 permit fee to climb Everest though.

it's like NOT going to church, but still believe in God.

Below are some views of members of the public which ABC conducted 6 months ago.


"I understand the opposition to people climbing it. But at this point, it is a pilgrimage to travel to Uluru and climb it. I suggest that it is as important to Australia in general as it is to the traditional owners, and that should be considered,"

It is not as if anyone built it. It was always there. Climb on it if you want. It is like saying you can't swim in Sydney harbour or walk around the Grand Canyon

"This is a secular country. Dictating access to a popular tourist destination based on religious beliefs is unacceptable,

The decision to climb or not to climb should remain with the individual, not the park management (white or black)

Some people want to climb it because it is there. I was happy to walk around the base, but have no axe to grind with those eager to see the view from the top. It is, after all, part of Australia.

If it is such a sacred site, then they should close it completely, and permanently. I would support that. But, until then I will have my doubts about it being such a site.

To me it's a case of put up or shut up.

Jack

Gday Willem,
you said " It serves no real purpose to climb the rock apart for some short term views"
Isn't that a bit like driving for miles to cross a desert? Why.....because its there and you can????
LOL

Go away Hairy...yer like a Marshfly....LOL

Why climb the rock? Easy. Because we REALLY REALLY WANT TO!

Motivations include: It's an icon. It's the done thing. It's a challenge. It's the heart of Oz. It's a sacred site and makes you feel more sacred having experienced the climb. The view! Because it's there. Because the latte set and indoctrinated indigenous people who have set up nearby don't want you to. Because there is a heap of tourist $$$$ to be made.

Having said that. I've been up a few times and won't go again ... maybe a little bit in part.. just in case some of the original inhabitants really do care.

Have said that though.... If my son and I take my grandson to visit in a few years I feel a stirring of passion that maybe I might just climb again. I definitely feel a cultural and spiritual draw to climbing. Maybe even though use pale people have been here a much shorter time... maybe we too have a spiritual value to the climb aspect.

It's not simple.

Anyway, my point is that there is a very strong motivation to climb in most poeple who visit.

Willem,

Its not often I disagree with your views be them viewed from afar. On his one I do.. and BIG TIME.

I lived in Sydney for 30 years and worked within sight of the Harbour Bridge. I saw it most days. I knew it as a friend. It was only just before leaving Sydney to enter retirement that we shelled out the significant dollars to do the climb.

I didn't have to climb. I wanted to make the trip. Was it worth it. YOU BET. The climb and the view from the top put Sydney into a whole different perspective. The feeling was quite spiritual

Maybe the indigenous owners should introduce 2 charges. A reduced charge for those choosing not to climb. Bet they don't though...

Benny

Well for starters it ISNT there tradition not to climb. Indeed the fit young bucks when visiting the area or returning often climbed.

I didnt climb it for a T shirt. indeed no t shirts are issued for the other regianally significant high points i have climbed
- St marys peak
- Mt ragged
- Peak charles
- Bluff Knoll
- Mt burgess
- Mt bruce
- Mt meharry
etc etc etc

It served as much purpose as many things we ahcieve through life
and i enjoyed all these climbs immensly both for the views, the excercise and the achievment

If we were only to do things that would achieve some great higher definable purpose it would make life not particulary worthwhile

get Outmore - That is why I would climb - for the View, give the effort and thats reward

Mt Raggard is a great climb.

Cheers Tony

I am aware of that, but many locals believe that it is just an excuse most of the time....

I wonder who it is that checks to see if the specified wind speed is being exceeded at the summit?

Phil G

Try Gold Coast Beaches. Three this year so far.

Will we close the GC beaches because of what may happen ?

Benny

Gday Phil,
I think you would find that most deaths were heart attacks and falls from misadventure....not being blown off the top or washed away.

As for tourist destinations......Central Australian roads claim tourist lives every year.
I know what you mean though..........the risk factor is the main reason for closing it.
Cheers
Hairy

more people have died at karanjini NP in the last 10 years just for starters

Hi Phil,
There are times when we can try our best intentions, but some people are plain stupid. On one of our climbs we were taking a breather at chicken rock, at the top where the chain starts/finishes. 3 German tourists were also taking a rest after being right to the top and back down. They all get up and on starts to run down alongside of the chain. Those that have climbed will know just how steep it is, yet this moron did what he did. His fellow countryman were yelling at him until he managed to somehow get old of the chain and slow himself down.

If he did fall, then why should his be blamed on the Rock. Just like speeding in a car, it is not the speed that kills you but the sudden stop.

Like I said above, the authorities can do there best to try and limit deaths on our roads, beaches and even the Rock, but it all comes down to what the person is doing to have caused that death.


Cheers

Stephen

Phil

Using that argument we'd have to close the Pacific Hwy, most airlines, and many other things where people have died.

To be absolutely frank, you have to die some time, so you might as well die doing something inspirational, rather than, say, driving to work or in bed.

Besides that, there is no shortage of people. A few more dead'ns is probably a good thing.

Bob

Port Arthur?

* Loch Ard Gorge, Victoria (although that was a while ago)
* Yarra Ranges National Park, Victoria (7 Feb 2009)
* Bali & Phuket (not in Oz but many Aussies still visit)

I'd question how many people die on the highways on their way to the Rock? And for how many years has the statistic remained unchanged at 35, despite thousands climbing the Rock every year?

Personally, I find it a little ironic that they pretend to be so worried about 35 people dying on (or falling off) the Rock, but how many people in, er, "outback communities" have died prematurely from alcohol (and other substance abuse) related illnesses and injuries?

"the rock itself is not "sacred" but certain sites around its base are the actual "sacred" bits"
That's exactly what I've been told too John. People I know who in the 70's spoke candidly with members of the Community (knew them for years) said the top of the rock held no special place for them because there was no reason to go up there. (No food or water) The sacredness of the top area of the rock is certainly a new idea that didn't exist before tourism took off. This was confirmed on my latest trip when we visited a remote Aboriginal community & the local elder had no issues at all with us climbing their equally large mountain. Again their sacred sites centered around water, food & shelter.
Cheers Craig..................

I will repeat again a follow up to a post above.

Gold Coast beaches have claimed 3 lifes due to drowning since the start of the year. Does Tourism Australia suggest people do not swim. Forget " between the flags directives"... the last victim was Sudanese and dressed in long pant civvies. He was a non swimmer. He had gone for a peddle and possibly a sand bank collapsed under him.

Benny

' Personally, I wouldn't climb it again '....
..........the over 100 brigade maybe?...hahahaha

Good on ya Hairy. Ole Vince is now a TO or what? Didn't he come fom S.Oz originally...lol


Cheers

Yep...you got it Hahahaha

Chairman I think...........

Cheers

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Chit Chat Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Chit Chat Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Chit Chat Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Chit Chat Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Chit Chat Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

maybe - but they allow the climb to continue. It only gets closed by park rangers. Only occasionally at the request of the owners for cerimonial/greiving purposes

Gday Jim,
I agree, weather we like it or not the Gov, decided to put the rock in the hands of a select group of people years ago...........if they want to close it they are entitled to and they could do it without the permission of the Gov too. They could just close it daily for cultural reasons.
I think the lack of revenue is a big deterant though.

Cheers

Hi Jim,

I dont believe it should be private property It should be a national park. I understand that the Koori community have times when ceromonies or cultural needs which need to be respected, (similiar to having public hols for easter) but the National parks & wildlife should be in control of what is an important place for all Australians not just a select few.

Cheers

I thought it was leased to the Fed Gov and was run and managed as a National Park with the Board of Directors having representation of the traditional owners as well as government appointees.

This seems to be confirmed by this detail Uluru Management

Hi John,

You might be right and it should be run like that but owned by the federal government. It should be owned by australians for australians.

cheers Wilko

John (Vic),

Did you really have a good look at the website you linked to?

Read this bit

The part John should have quoted

Jim.

Why should I have quoted the bit about climbing??

I simply replied to Wilk0 regarding the management structure and ownership.

Pretty typical Jim that you choose to selectively attack me to big note yourself.
Goes with the type personality (Troll) of the individual.

John he wasnt attacking you, he was arguing the other side of th arguement, don't make this a personal thing.

If it wasn't directed at me then why point the reply at me?
He could have just as easily posted the link as a stand alone answer to the original post but he chose as usual to make it personal.

As I said typical of the individual.

Not personal at all John and certainly not an attack.

Given that this thread is about climbing Uluru, I thought it pertinent to quote the section of that website that is relevant to the subject at hand.

Regards,

Jim.

I think he was pointing out other references on the site that you referred to, as I said, it doesn't look like a personal attack John, don't take it as such.

Let me simply say, John, its not your responsibility to do anything, I dont know where you got that idea from.

Jim pointed out a different part of that website that you quoted, I am simply saying, dont jump on the personal attack wagon, its not warranted as I see it. Jim's just put an alternate arguement from the same source you quoted.

Moving away from all that I have private property (freehold) and the govt. tells me what I can do on it. I need permission to clear trees, cant dam waterways,even if they are mostly dry.Etc etc

This debate bores me to tears, there is a Plan of Management that dictates what can and can't be done, what can and can't be changed within the pack for 10 years, this is the site you need to look at.

This is drawn up put out to the public, then tabled in Parliament, once it is passed, then it is LAW for it's duration, the same applies to Kakadu.

I have spoken to the Traditional owners, as I have quoted before, it is not people climbing the rock that concerns them but the fact that someone may hurt themselves, they feel responsible and this affects them deeply, the same happened when the girl was taken by a croc in Kakadu some years ago, friends of mine (TOs) did a ceremony at the site Jeffrey was saddened for a long time over the incident, the TOs have no problem with you climbing the rock they just don't want you to get hurt.

Wilk0 these people have every right to own this land, you have no right to de nigh them.

Cheers Steve

Hi Steve,

I am not denying any person or race to own what they like, but I don't believe a place that is spiritually as signifigant to all Australians should be owned by individual grou or people, It should be a National park owned by Australians for all Australians with the TO's as advises.

Cheers Wilko

Don't you think it is just a tad hypocritical to state that "this land" Australia or any part thereof belongs to other people but still claim ownership of your little piece, your back yard??? If you truly hold that belief leave then and get off someone elses property. Go back to where ever your ancestors came from.

Cheers Pop

Was that aimed @ me POP or @ Steve?

Apologies to anyone who thought my reply was aimed at a particular respondent.
It was a generalized comment about the premise that certain selective parts of Oz belong to the inhabitants that got here before European arrival, but other parts when deemed appropriate by governing bodies do not. My point being if your view is that Ayres Rock Uluru or whatever you choose to call it is owned by the "original inhabitants" or for that matter any area now declared to be owned by this group how do you justify that this ruling does not apply to the piece of Australia you now refer to as your block, property or whatever you call it. Surely if any part was owned by previous inhabitants then why not the whole. If this is your honest belief then it follows you are on someone else's land. I don't recall seeing or hearing about any sale or gift document from "them" to "us".
If your honest belief is that you own your back yard then it follows that Australia in your estimation is now not compliant with a previous occupant but "owned" by all Australians. Well apart from the ever growing amount being sold to overseas interests.

Cheers Pop

Hi Pop,

My apologies I thought it was in response to my reply. You write a lot of wise words.

It is a very emotive debate and as you said it wont matter when it is all owned by foreign owners lol.


Cheers Wilko

Hi Wilko,
Yeah you are right a very emotive debate and certainly no easy answer.

I am too old to start a fight with anyone but I must admit I find the old hackles rising when people shout "racist" as soon as someone has the temerity to disagree with their point of view. And no that wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular.

(:-))

All the best

Pop

Hi Paul
I am glad you said "when", because we all know that will never happen.

Well said.


Cheers


Stephen

Bad, very bad, and horribly racist.

If you care to take the the time to understand the problems of The Aboriginal People, and the effect that European settlement had upon them, you'd never make such an insensitive remark.

I am not racist, and have some good friends that are aboriginals. I have had a lot to do with full bloods and trust me, they are ashamed of what is happening to their own society. Do not start that c@%p about European settlement. You sound like the ones that deface signs and then write "invaded or conquered" on them.
Like this sign down the Coorong, so WHO then is the Racist.

Image Could Not Be Found

At the end of the day plenty of countrys were conquered, taken over or improved upon, depending where you view lies.

The past is the past, I see the Koori community as Australian and such should be treated as Australians and get treated the same no more no less.

Treating someone differently cause of their race is racist and that goes for reverse racism as well.

I believe we need to take the colour out of the argument and treat people the same.

cheers Wilko

What a stupid thing to believe. I have lost all respect for both of the 2 above, absolutely pathetic comments. Dont make assumptions based on the minority, or the people of your area.

Probably the stupidest comments i have ever heard on Exploroz, i would like to see you say that to an aboriginals face.

One reason Australia wont move forward is because of these one eyed idiots.

Jim

While I do sympathise with the problems that the aboriginal people have, there surely must come a time when they choose to forget the past and move on to better times.

I don't think that most Australians are rascist but rather they treat anyone of whatever colour/race with the respect that they deserve.

There are many who are great black people, and many others who have overcome the obstacles to be very successful as independant people in our society. Just as there are many whites who have had to do the same.

Paul
PS I think your response was to Stephen so am not taking offence at your 'rascist' rcomment.

Hi Boss,

Was that aimed @ me?

Cheers Wilko

No not at all Wilk0, was directed at the the other 2 pathetic comments up top.

Ok didnt think it was

Just to clear things up, my original response was directed at Ups and Downs, but equally at at Stephen.

Such, broad, sweeping, crass remarks serve no useful purpose and only widen the morass.

It's a matter I feel deeply about. It is a fact that in Australia our indigenous people have a life expectancy that is 20 years less than other Australians. That is the biggest gap of ANY country in the world (source: ABC radio just this week) and that is a disgrace.

Jim.

Lets go all the way.......

"Let not man pride in that he loves his country, let man pride in that he loves his kind"

"The Earth is but one country and mankind its citizens"

The world will not find rest until all mankind is seen as one, we only differ in our cultures and all cultures need to be respected and understood.

Cheers Tony

Jim

You've got a problem mate.

Just because I stated that they have to respect themselves before anyone else will doesn't make me rascist.

Maybe I see things without blinkers on. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and fling the 'rascist' tag at anyone who doesn't agree with your view.

Facts are facts, they have had a hard time in the past and with all the money and energies directed at fixing 'the' problem I think that they have to pull their collective fingers out as well and do something constructive for their race.

Tony adds: "Let not man pride in that he loves his country, let man pride in that he loves his kind".

Do they love their kind? I don't know if they do.

I fear you missed Tony's point.

Paul - A lot say they are not racist and that may be so... what you have to consider though is that the comments may be - definition follows;

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

When we make comments on people of a certain culture stating that they do not like themselves or do not respect each other as much as another culture - then the comments have crossed the line and can be labeled as such.

Cheers Tony

Tony,

You have a succinct way with words. Somewhat better than my blunt approach. It's a skill, I'm trying to work on it.

Unfortunately, however, it is often misconstrued, hence my use of the blunt message.

Regards,

Jim.

Ah....the way of the capitalist society..throw money at any problem and expect it to go away....

Seems to me our indigenious friends can't win.....take our money, stop complaining about the past and that will right all wrongs....but don't embrace our (capitalist) ways and start charging us (exhorbitant) fees to climb the 'rock'....perhaps they have been corrupted all too well!

Personally I have no desire to climb the 'rock' out of respect; but I understand that many don't share the view.....

I don't think it is fair to hang Paul at the stake for an off the cuff remark, it is only an observation and an accurate one for many. The real story is far more complicated as you have pointed out Jim. The integration of two disparate cultures is a long and slow process, and it will have to happen as none of us are keen on leaving :-)

Dave

Jim, I agree "...It is a fact that in Australia our indigenous people have a life expectancy that is [significantly] less than other Australians. ... and that is a disgrace." but what is your suggestion to fix this problem? Are we really concerned enough that we are prepared to investigate the causes and work on those causes EVEN IF they could be unpopular (ie. not politically correct)?

Yes, we could argue for years on their life expectancy before europeans arrived and after. We could argue for years about their own inter-tribal conflicts but even if true, I don't accept that any of these give sufficient cause for any of us to exacerbate the situation: ie. just because we think they might be racist (and even if they are) doesn't give us sifficient cause to be racist too - hmm, I can hear my primary school teacher telling us all that "two wrongs don't make a right". And "Ups & Downs", how can you think we could possibly reduce racism while ever everyone else is waiting for everyone else to stop being racist first?!

And Tony sums it up well with his quote "Let not man pride in that he loves his country, let man pride in that he loves his kind". It is not an acceptable excuse that you don't love your kind simply because you assess (rightly or otherwise) that they don't also love their kind.

However, while Tony's closing statement sounds very nice and harmonious, it is inconsistent with the first quote and even seems terribly naive to pretend that "...all cultures need to be respected and understood". If this were true, then you would have to understand and respect all views presented above and may even have to surrender your right to disagree. Or perhaps you should consider is it really appropriate to respect the 'culture' of the scammer, or the rapist, or the peadophile, or the man who comes home drunk and beats his family, or the terrorist (to give extreme examples)? No, there are some cultures (or at least, some aspects of many cultures incl. the Australian culture) that proclaim loudly that such a man does NOT love his kind. Sure, we can try to understand these cultures, but I don't accept they are all worthy of equal respect.

Timbo - You are making the mistake a lot of people make in relation to Culture. Extremist views are and never will be part of true culture, when views go beyond the original teachings and are taken up in full by a culture, then by one means or another they are brought back into line - history is full of this. When a person from a culture crosses the line of decency, then again it is not true culture. When a person from a culture expresses their opinion based on their belief, then this is a reflection of their true culture.

The comments I have made have been taken too narrow. Kind in mankind, not a single culture, culture is what makes a person who they are usually based on a set of beliefs. We are after all one species and only differ in culture and language. we must learn to love all peoples of the world.

If we, as stated, take time to understand true cultures of the world and learn to communicate with each other, then the world will start to become of age.

If studied and then used accordingly true culture is what makes the world a wonderful place, if used for greed and your own ends under the guise of culture, then the world is not a place to be.

We do not have to and should not accept extremist views and new wave cultures base on selfish gain. Very nice and harmonious as you have put, but the world must learn to be like this or it has no future. It only needs a person's to think global and that day is just around the corner.

Cheers Tony

"We are after all one species and only differ in culture and language. we must learn to love all peoples of the world."
No argument there! Where I'll differ is that not all cultures equally love their own kind, and are therefore not all are worthy of equal respect/acceptance.

Look for example at World War II: while it's true that the views (or 'culture') of Nazi Germany were extreme, crossed the line of decency and were (thankfully) by one means or another brought back into line (at least for the time being), it is just as true that there were distinct differences in the ways that various cultures demonstrated their love of their kind - or otherwise. Why was one culture willing to sacrifice their own people as kamikaze pilots while most others were not? And (forgetting your nationality for a moment) do you think it would have been better to have been a prisoner or war held as an enemy of the British, the Americans, the Germans or the Japanese?

Even without looking at the history books, you can see in the world today that there are distinct differences in the value that different cultures place on human life (ie. how much they love their kind) - Australia is a culture that generally takes seriously the safety of it's citizens whether at work or on the road. It was eye opening (to put it mildly) to be involved with a significant construction project in India and to observe the safety standards (or lack thereof) on that site, as well as on the roads.

"We do not have to and should not accept extremist views and new wave cultures base on selfish gain."
Two problems:
The first is, what is an extremist view? Probably a view that is very different from someone else's... so while you think someone has an extreme view, he thinks it's your view that's extreme - is it relative or is one right and the other wrong? On what basis are you going to decide?
Secondly, sadly no culture is completely free of seflish gain. And again, I would argue that some are more susceptible to it than others.

"Very nice and harmonious as you have put, but the world must learn to be like this or it has no future. It only needs a person's to think global and that day is just around the corner."
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in a nice and harmonious world too, but from reading news about world events, I can't imagine that day is just around the corner (not that that excuses anyone from doing their bit).

Jim.

With regard to life expectancy of aboriginal people, my brother works in the medical field up the NW.
He regularly visits remote communities providing medical services, advice and education. He is at a loss why he cannot get through to these people, the importance of looking after their health. How very minor changes in lifestyle, hygiene, injury management etc can make them live longer happier lives.

To add to that the vast resources the Govt puts in place for these people, some say 'throwing money at the problem' others say 'not enough money', and still the problem exists.

A sad but in some way comical experience he told me of recently:
He did an emergency run out to a community where a 35 yr old male was suffering some sort of diabetic fit. My brother stablised him with medication and stayed with him until he was ok. Explained to the patient that the sugar in alcohol was slowly killing him. Left him enough medication and instructions untill his next visit.
The following day the hospital received an emergency call from the community and duly dispatched an ambulance. On arrival it transpired that the chap from the previous day had flogged off all the tablets to his tribe and wanted the ambulance to take him into town so he could buy grog and drop him back at the community.
A round trip of 400 kms 2 medics tax payers money wasted.....just because he wanted a taxi. This happens, not only in this community but others on a weekly basis.

Education is not working.
Job Creation is not working.
Resources are not being taken advantage of.
Money disappears faster than negro at a KKK convention.

Maybe we are all falling over trying to find a solution to the problem when the solution may lay within the aboriginal people themselves.

You can take a horse to water.................

Cheers.....Lionel.

Lionel,

I'm hearing you, but thse people did not have these problems before European settlement (or invasion). They were a nomadic, almost primeval race who were at one with the environment. Not a damn thing wrong with that.

They were a race living, by European standards of perhaps 2000 BC. Let us not forget the "ancient" Greeks, Egyptians and Romans had achieved remarkable things well prior to Christ.

And in just 250 years our indigenous brethren have been expected to progress some 4000 years. It is not a realistic expectation. And the worst thing is the introduction of chemicals that are mind altering. Our European ancestry allowed thousands of years to let the human body adjust, accept and become attuned to such drugs.

Not to mention the murder, rape and slave like existence these people were expected endure. Do not for a minute forget that Aborigines were hunted and shot for sport. Their children were taken from them. Need I go on?

Their plight is not pretty.

Cheers,

Jim.

Fair enough mate, cant argue those points, it happened and can never be reversed.

Has anyone actually, in an official capacity, asked the aboriginal people or their elders- representatives what they want, how these problems can be addressed, because if they dont know, how are we expected to.

We are giving them the tools, all they have to do is make the effort to pick them up.



Cheers......Lionel.

Hi Jim,
I am not stirring the pot, but you have used that word again "Invasion". Do you realy know much about Aboriginal History?? I well and truly think you get hold of a great book called "The Red Chief". It was one of those great books that once you start it, you can not put it down. It is told by an old Aboriginal, Bungaree, of his tribe in the Gunnedah District of NSW. and of a great young warrior "Red Kangaroo" By his mental and physical prowess, he became on of the greatest and powerful Aboriginal men in the district, 200 years before Australia was visited by white people. Red Kangaroo INVADED other tribal areas in the district and took over their tribal land to create a powerful tribe in his own right.

Do not think for just one minute that all aboriginal people lived in harmony with each other, this is far from correct. Even today one of my full blood friends still talk about his tribal land in the far north of SA being invaded and taken over in the take 1800 by another more powerful Aboriginal group from Western Australia. To this day, he has great animosity towards the other group and would love to turn the tide, to have his tribal land back in his groups possession.

I could go on with more facts about Aboriginal Invasions of their own people.

Fact are facts and so is Aboriginal history.

Cheers

Stephen

The following book provides an insight to some of the issues, as seen from the 'other side' and especially on issues such as health etc.......

Lionel, perhaps you could recomend it to your brother, it certainly provides some 'food for thought' on the issues he and you raise.

Why Warriors Lie Down and Die

In so far as 'invasion' discussions go....well if you look at other countries and indigenious inhabitants, there are examples of 'agreements' being made. For example, the American Indians, they sold land off; The New Zealand Maori people had a treaty....the indigenious Australian aborigine was afforded nothing. So they may well see it as an invasion.....

Looked at in another way....put your hand up if you would simply have rolled over and accepted fate if Japan had been successful in taking Australia in the 1940s, or might you still be fighting for what you thought is rightfully yours still today?

Sure, the issue is complex, but cut it back to basics like this and reflect on it for a moment......

Cheers

"in just 250 years our indigenous brethren have been expected to progress some 4000 years"



I think even the most passive Aborginal would get upset hearing that condescending peice of rubish

there are many Aboriginals in society - some of which ive worked or gone to school with that get along just fine in 21st century life

the issues facing the rest are obvios and is called the viscous cycle

it starts as kids not getting cared for or parented. By the time they are 17 they have no more than a basic education because they havnt had to go to school. its all down hill from there. and they bring there kids up the same way. White people who have had the same upbringing and lack education are exactly the same its just far more visable as a higher % of the population

GOM,

You completely missed the point.

These people have been expected (and forced, remember the Stolen Generation) to "come up" to the white man's standard. And people like you judge their success according to the way you think they should live and behave.

There are still a great many Aborigines who just want to be left alone to live their chosen lifestyle. They don't want to live the white man's way.

Jim.

and hows that working out for them?

we all know the answer

"These people have been expected ... to "come up" to the white man's standard. And people like you judge their success according to the way you think they should live and behave."

Actually Jim, you were also comparing them to white man's living standards in terms of life expectancy - people like you judge their success according to how long you think they should live based on white man's standards. Would it be reasonable to say that if they want a similar life expectancy to white man (ie. close that 20 year gap you mentioned) that they might have to start to adopt some of the living standards of white man? Or would it be considered racist to suggest such a thing?

In 2008 we visited Uluru again and it will be the last time that we do. It is far too expensive and far too restrictive.

We've walked the base on several occasions and each time something else has been proclaimed a sacred site and we can't go near it.

We've also walked the Valley of the Winds several times and in our HO it is a far better deal than the rock.

Bruce and Di

Hi Bruce and Di,

It is exxie to go to and I liked the Valley of the winds more then the climb too.

cheers Wilko

What are the costs?

Gday Bonz,
$25 for a 3 day pass.

Cheers

$25 each if I remember correctly..

Hey Hairy and Graham,

That doesnt seem too bad, although I hate paying for anything like that, given that there has to be some management of these things we all have to shoulder a cost. It would be a little exxy for a family though.

Add the $100 for a family of 4 to these camping fees.....throw in a bit of fuel, food and grog and it starts to get pretty dear!

Campground cabins - rate per cabin
(up to six people, shared bathroom facilities) $150
Camping - Powered Site (per person) $19
Camping - Non-Powered Site (per person) $16.50
Additional Person $16
Child (6 - 15 years inclusive) $9
Child (0 - 5 years inclusive) Free of charge
Family Rate - Powered Site
(2 adults and 2 or more children) $47
Family Rate - Non-Powered Site
(2 adults and 2 or more children) $42
Permanent Village Tents - 2 single beds, linen, a recharable lantern and extra bedding and a hot water bottle on request. Rate per tent. $95

well it should be pointed out those campsite fees are nearly 1/2 of what is generally charged at alot of places now

caravan parks are about $25 pluss for unpowered sites these days

indeed in 2003 that was the going rate in Geraldton for example

Don't worry......as soon as they find that out the prices will jump!

We stayed in Geraldton for 5 weeks in late July, August and with our Big 4 discount paid just a bit over $30 for a powered site.

In Bussleton paid $22.50 for the same at Kookaburra Right next to the old cemetary Really nice quiet neighbours. LOL

$25 at Beach Big 4 at Denmark

$30.60 at Middleton Beach Albany Big 4

Still quite a lot under $30 and quite nice

A few quite a bit more and a bit ratty.

We paid $75 for 2 adults and 1 kid to go to an art museum near Arnhem (Holland) today it was fantastic.

We spent hours there looking at Van Gogh's, Monet's, Renoir's and Picasso's paintings etc.

The price is not the issue, it is what it is worth to you that counts.

Lunch was another $45

Cheers Steve.

Graham, I thought it was $25 per vehicle (3 day pass), not $25 per person?

You could be right will see if I have kept the pass as we have sort of collected a few

I was correct as per here


There is an entrance fee into the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. The fee is $25.00 per adult (16 years and over) for a 3 day pass. Children under 16 years enter free.


From this website

http://www.australianexplorer.com/uluru.htm

Seem to remember being a bit p........d about it at the time

Yikes!! That IS rich. No wonder people want to climb as well if they're already paying that much just to get near the Rock! :-)

They must be trying to compete with Koziosko NP for "Australia's most expensive NP"! LOL.

hmmm but on closer inspection

a WA NP is $10 to enter and $6.00 to camp so for 3 days 2 nights will set you back

$42

to go to ayres rock for the same period will set you back
$58

$16 more but you do get a bit more than a long drop dunny for camping facilities

the actual entrance fee for the rock is cheaper

The entrance to the Rock is $25 EACH ADULT.

The camping fees dont come into it as they are OUTSIDE the gates where you pay.

You can go to the camping ground/van park without paying the entrance fee.

Was $19 EACH for a powered van site per night in lovely red dirt and flies.

So it cost us $78 to go and park for two nights and go to the rock and the OLGAS.

Squabbling over a couple of dollars, never mind you have just spent how much money on all the crap on your vehicles and caravans?

But to see one of the great wonders of the world your whinging about $25.

HaHa funny stuff. For less then a carton beer or a jerrycan of fuel, it costs $25 for me and the bride to go see a movie here. Stop the whinging and be grateful you have gotten to experience it.

Ha ha, you've got a point there Boss, no to mention how many thousand $$$ we spend in fuel getting there and back! But I think it's also a bit of a question of what you get for the money, and how it's spent - ie. everyone of those thousands of tourists shells out another $25 (couples are $50, families would be more depending on size) and it just disappears into the never-never. Does it really cost that much to maintain the park (esp. when Federal Gov't already allocates some funding to NP Management)? If the money isn't being spent on the Park, why should Park users be coughing up?

Maybe I'm just getting a bit stingey - I've gotten used to me and Mrs catching a taxi to the mall, having a decent dinner, watching a movie, and taking a taxi home again all for about $25 (including tipping the taxi drivers) - but we don't go to the movies on weekends because it's more expensive LOL! :-)

Dont see where I was squabbling over money.

Was merely pointing out quite clearly the actual cost

Yes I was a bit pipped when first asked to pay but after a very enjoyable look and walking in the Olgas it was OK.

In the light of our trip costing over $1000 a week on average for the last year its not much but was a bit unexpected and Im sure a large group or a family with teen agers may think twice.

I think going to a movie for two hours for $25 is a waste of money but thats where we differ.

3 days at Ularu is better value but then I havent been to a movie since Titanic.

Actually would have liked to take a trip to Connor Bluff which looks much more impressive Was prepared to pay $100 for that but they werent going on the particular day.

Cheers

Thanks Mandrake,

Looks like a good read.

Cheers Wilko

in all fairness it seems to be written with an agenda with no links to credible sources

not saying its right or wrong just saying just coz its on the net doesnt make it true

unfortunatly research such as that usually gets labelled as rascist

ive tried doing net research on weather the climb really does interfere with sacred sites and real info is hard too find

get outmore - you'll face the same problem trying to find info on any high-politicised issue.

"- and those who know the least are now those who have the most to say"

pretty much sums it up I reckon....

;-)

Lionel Bit blunter and to the point than I would have posted - but I agree with you - we drive past and admire from afar.

I wonder how much is left of the traditional ways and how much the traditional ways have been corrupted or more wisely put, adapted to the changing times and politics of the day?

Would not that have been a good vantage point to survey the area, etc etc, I am sure in the past it would have been climbed by the natives of the time.

But they do own it now and the owners can do what they wish! Cheers Tony

Yeh I reckon. Even the cultural centre had backpackers working in it!
Dean