Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Dog Rocks adn the local aboriginies 15-Aug-2004 At 9:58:37 PM Damietta

Message

Graeme Hill struggled with the same issue at Nowra. His way of dealing with the sensitive issue was to name the cliff Boong crag and bolt the hell out of it.

Philosophically, if there is an issue involving an indigenous tribal site in particular, I would think that the only sensible and respectful thing to do is to cease climbing activities at the site until the issue is resolved - especially if the local indigenous folk "hate" climbers being there - even the latter would be enough for me to skeedaddle on Karma grounds. If the claims are then legitimate and this has been ascertained in a fair and balanced way - and I think that this itself is important - then cease climbing activities permanently pending the collective opinion of the tribal owners of the site. As Paulie points out, there is enough rock to go round.

But by the same token, and again as Paulie points out, a climbing body or other affiliate should be at the table in the discussions and negotiations over these and all other access issues to represent climber's interests.

Climbing and climbing areas are valuable and we should by no means be shrinking voilets when these issues come up. Who knows what precedents will be set and what future access issues will arise for all climbing areas?

Maybe the issue is more complex when you start talking about an entire, significant climbing area like say Mt Stapylton or Mt Arapiles. Someone here might be able to correct me but I remember hearing about a climbing area in the US like Devils Tower, Wyoming, or similar being closed because it was a site of indigenous tribal significance - but this was ignored by many parties - who continued to fill in the summit register after their ascent. Neil, Martin or A5 might be able to shed some light on how (in)accurate my recollection is.

There you might have to start means testing the settlement involving all the stakeholders - ie how do you compare the benefit to climbers and the community of the site being open to climbing and other activities - significant - versus preserving the cultural and spiritual significance of the site - also significant - and are they indeed compatible or could they plausibly be complementary. And even if so, do climbers think that a karma comes in to play?

There's my piece, not worth much