On 15/06/2012 kieranl wrote:
>Sol,
>James is simply telling it like it is. His earlier posts about archaeological
>implications got some snorts of derision so education about consequences
>probably seemed a more logical step.
>Don't delude yourself that what climbers get up anywhere in the Grampians
>is "far from any government presence". Parks are very aware of climbers
>activities in the Grampians, even in what we consider the remote parts
>of the Victoria Range.
>It isn't hard to find out what the situation with indigenous heritage
>is in our parks and elsewhere. Why is it up to James, another climber,
>to have to spoon-feed us information that is readily available, including
>elsewhere on this forum? Are we so precious that we can't cope with a few
>straightforward facts?
His earlier posts? While he may make valid points regarding indigenous heritage, have no relevance to Animal Acts boulder. It is not a cave nor a shelter. It has already had generations of climbers stomping all over the landing.
On 12/06/2012 JamesMc wrote:
>Digging under rock overhangs in the Grampians has significant cultural
>heritage implications (archaeology). I couldn't think of a better way to
>get access prohibited.
On 13/06/2012 JamesMc wrote:
>OK, I got my geography wrong.
>I'm a climber, not a boulderer. Same issue apples though.
On 13/06/2012 JamesMc wrote:
>As for what to do next, probably no real harm done IF there are no artifacts
>there. Better to get a friendly archaeologist to take a look, then clean
>it up.
>
>Anyone have a contact for Andy Long or Roark Muhlen-Schulte?
Regarding my commentary on JamesMc's rhetoric, I stand by my point. Prohibitions have never worked well in influencing behavior. Education is proven to work. He obviously has a point he wants to make. A point about protecting archaeologically interesting sites in caves that I am entirely sympathetic with.