Thread: Climbing Uluru to be banned from 2019

Originally Posted by Eevo

i didnt know that about Stonehenge.

how many religious sites are national parks?

No idea. Probably many globally. And just because something is under 'national ownership', doesn't mean its ownership is actually divided amongst the citizens of a country. Governments exist as legal entities as well as parliamentary bodies; they have to in order to be able to do anything involving contracts etc. A National Park (or any public space) isn't actually owned by the citizens anymore than a Naval Base or Federation Square is given that both are Government land. Access to the former will be granted by charter created when the park was designated.

Fitzy

The Popcorn is Running Low

Not going to get in a right or wrong slanging match, but seems there is a lot of rubbish information out there.
I climbed it back in 96 and the view is amazing.
Now it will be interesting to see if they can actually stop you.
Talking to the local indigenous when we were there it had nothing to do with it being a sacred site. The area that is a sacred site has been no access for 40 plus years and it is to do with the initiation of young men, which in itself is a ridiculous and barbaric tradition. Those that know of this will know exactly what I am talking about.
What they explained to me when I was there was the reason they did not want people to climb the rock was because if someone fell and was killed they had to mourn them and even if someone was injured it upsets them.
Seems these recent excuses of it being sacred and not climbing have just been made up recently.
Was all good while they were making millions of tourist dollars, for something that they cannot legally charge access for anyway.
Its a bit like working in the Pilbara with all these sites that most have never visited and never will again once listed as a sacred site. Yes we should preserve them when and where we can, but we also must be realistic and the named sacred site must have real significance and not just be a bartering tool.

Originally Posted by Classic88

No idea. Probably many globally. And just because something is under 'national ownership', doesn't mean its ownership is actually divided amongst the citizens of a country. Governments exist as legal entities as well as parliamentary bodies; they have to in order to be able to do anything involving contracts etc. A National Park (or any public space) isn't actually owned by the citizens anymore than a Naval Base or Federation Square is given that both are Government land. Access to the former will be granted by charter created when the park was designated.

correct, and national parks are there for the enjoyment of all (while being conservation focused). like Kosciuszko National Park for example.

Originally Posted by Eevo

i can respect someones beliefs, but does that doesn't mean i have to follow or endorse them.

Didn't say you had to, I don't believe in their beliefs either, just like I don't believe in Oden and all that other mythical stuff, if they want to believe then I can respect that just like kneeling and making the sign of the cross when you enter a Catholic church, whether you believe or not, it's a small sign of respect.

Originally Posted by Redback

just like kneeling and making the sign of the cross when you enter a Catholic church, whether you believe or not, it's a small sign of respect.

having been raised a catholic, I would of considered this inappropriate. but my point is moot. you dont believe it, but you still subscribed to it.

Originally Posted by Eevo

if you didnt climb, how do you know walking the circumference was the better experience?

i've done both and there is no comparision.
walking the olgas is better than uluru circumference walk imho.

And I agree with you there.

WA has a bigger rock than Uluru , you can come and climb Mt Augustas if it turns your jollies on .