On 25-Oct-2017 gfdonc wrote:
>yeah but, umm, this is a National Park we're talking about. Bolting is
>illegal.
>
>Graffiti is illegal, too, unless it's more than 100 years old ;-)
>
>Sarcasm aside, the debate ought to be about relaxing NP attitude to bolting,
>without which a number of popular climbing areas wouldn't exist. If something
>is 100% banned at present, the debate (from a climber's perspective) ought
>to be about shifting the balance to something less than 100%.
>
>Having that in place would create a space for the topic above, where certain
>areas are designated as 'more' sensitive, and, with a sensible compromise
>in place across the board, easily accepted by the community.
>
>Despite the above view, or perhaps in sympathy with it, I welcome specific
>postings and advisories here about particularly sensitive areas, and insensitive
>transgressions.
>
No, you're doing the first-world thing. You're asking the indigenous people to identify "reserves" where their interests will be respected.
Think about this. What if Parks said, you can't place bolts or use chalk here unless you can demonstrate that there are no signifiant indigenous sites here?
|