Thread: The Banning of Climbing Uluru (Ayers Rock) - thoughts on this article?

Originally Posted by Eevo

why not?

You haven't met them, so they're not your friends and they don't have to respond like friends, as in the previous example. It's a different relationship, like between a landowner and a tourist.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

I disagree with pretty much all of that.
Pickles.

Disagree all you like, it's all true.

Yeah we all have our own opinions which is great, it's how we treat others with those differing opinions that separates us from the undesirables....

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Disagree all you like, it's all true.

Definitely NOPE. Might be true in your mind, & indeed others, but many have different opinions, which they are entitled to, and with respect to all the "myth & hearsay" about, means that your version of the truth, or indeed anyone elses, is not necessarily, "The Truth",....it's simply your opinion, what you choose to believe, based on what you've been told/read,.....as is mine.
Pickles.

Funny how people treat this situation differently to other landowners where tourism is allowed and the landowner/farmer restricts access to certain parts of that land for whatever reason and no one bats an eyelid, but NPWS, Native title, forestry or any other body and everyone up in arms.

I'm sure if you owned a large piece of land you wouldn't want people crawling all over it, I know I wouldn't.

The trouble with giving access to people is that as soon as they do some bunch (or individual) of clowns will do damage and over time most will think they have a right to keep going there because(I've been going/doing this for years) attitude comes into play.

Going into/onto someone else's land is not a right, the person who owns that land can do whatever the hell they want with it.

Baz.

Hi Baz,

I am not sure that I agree with your argument there. To me it’s 2 different types of “ownership”

A farmer buys the land, pays taxes, rates, land tax, etc.

Originally Posted by grey_ghost

A farmer buys the land, pays taxes, rates, land tax, etc.

thats not always the case

lots of people have land that was deeded to them after wars etc etc

do we know that the land at the rock doesn't attract rates of any type etc etc?

or is that just your assumption ?

not that that should matter because if they have been deeded the land for whatever reason it is theirs to do with as they please

but public money shouldn't be being spent on the land if there is no return IMHO.

people is a different kettle of fish....

They agreed, on receiving title, to make the land available to the NPWS under certain conditions, similar to a number of other NPs which ate also leased to the NPWS by the owners.
They have already done the nation a favour by allowing continued access - most landowners just shut the gate.
It's their land.