Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 8 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 205
Author
Grampians Access 2019
Access T CliffCare
18-Mar-2019
11:17:40 AM
Part 2) STAY IN THE LOOP

Keep up to date by signing up to the CliffCare website blog. You will receive each update direct into your inbox. Just click on sign up on front page.

Follow CliffCare’s Facebook page and share our updates far and wide.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

PETITION
The Grampians Access Working Group has created a petition.

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE TO YOUR NETWORKS.

Most important: respect all bans that have been put in place by Parks Victoria. If you hear of anyone who is planning to climb in any of these areas, please inform them of the bans.

If you have skills that you think might be useful to the VCC, become a volunteer and assist our efforts. Contact cliffcare@vicclimb.org.au

You can become a member of the VCC. The VCC is the organisation that administers CliffCare. https://vicclimb.org.au/join/

Donate directly to CliffCare and support our efforts in advocacy, environmental projects and education.
https://www.givenow.com.au/cliffcare;jsessionid=0852D7EEEB6C361577D28F4A46D5E0E6

Share you concerns with your local MP via a letter, email or phone call. Consider sending a letter to the Victorian Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Lily D’Ambrosio and Emma Kealy, local MP for Lowan (includes the GNP). In this letter you should highlight: your involvement in climbing, how the ban affects you and your community, and any concerns you might have regarding the lack of consultation by PV with the climbing community prior to introducing the bans. We think it is helpful for climbers to acknowledge the value and significance of environmental and cultural concerns, and that through proper consultation, we would like to work towards a win-win solution for all stakeholders.

If you have other questions that you feel are not answered here, please feel free to email us.
Rawpowa!
18-Mar-2019
3:08:05 PM
So essentially we can climb everywhere except the 8 areas? The email is a little confusing but that seems to be the takeaway, correct me if I'm wrong.
lukef
18-Mar-2019
7:15:15 PM
The way I interpret it as is: we won't fine you, but we'll tell you off, and we'll try to catch you on any other little thing possible, oh and this is 'education' period while we put up signs and prepare to start fining people for climbing in SPAs. I don't understand why they can't just be straight up about the whole thing, either ban it or don't, just be clear about it! I wonder what sort of internal politics is going on over there at parks to lead to this debacle in public relations...
Ball_Bagg
18-Mar-2019
7:28:12 PM
I am still confused.
>
>In broader Special Protected Areas, outside those eight key locations,
>Parks Victoria is sharing the information materials on rock climbing and
>undertaking enforcement activity relating to other activities not permitted
>in any National Park including cutting or damaging vegetation (for instance
>to make or enhance tracks), lighting fires outside of designated fireplaces,
>depositing litter, interfering with Aboriginal cultural heritage such as
>rock art or any damage to rock faces such as drilling holes. We are not
>enforcing no rock climbing activity in broader Special Protected Areas
>at this stage and will communicate if anything changes.

In the last sentence of this paragraph Simon Talbot “we are not enforcing no rock climbing activity in SPAs”.
OK this bit is clear - climbing in SPAs is allowed but no bolting, no track clearing etc but after the three*** , is this Simon still talking or is it a Cliffcare interpretation?

Lower down it says....

>”Our understanding at this stage is that:”
>......
>”Rangers will inform you that you should not climb in the SPAs outside
>of the eight focus sites (blue squares on the first map issued by PV) as
>part of an education process, but will not fine you.” You will be fined
>if you litter, cut, remove or damage vegetation, light fires outside of
>designated fireplaces, interfere with any cultural heritage or rock art
>in these areas,deface or drive off track.”
>
It’s open to interpretation and therefore confusion. Call me paranoid but it’s give wriggle room to an enforcer who may want to interpret the policy in their favour. It has happened before!

1. If Simon Talbot says the bans in SPAs will not be enforced why would a ranger inform me that I should not climb.
2. If the ranger tells me “I should not climb” do I just keep climbing? And what happens then?
3. What exactly does “SPAs outside the eight focus sites” mean? Does it mean anywhere in the SPA. For example, if I was climbing at the asses ears a ranger could tell me I shouldn’t be climbing there. Or does it mean the area in a SPA that is close to a blue square like if I climb at the tower then it’s deemed too close to the gallery and I may get told to leave?

I need some clarity on this!

lukef
18-Mar-2019
7:46:33 PM
On 15-Mar-2019 FatBoy wrote:
>I am utterly convinced that the items of environmental damage (some real
>and a lot perceived) including:
  • excessive chalk
  • bouldering
    >mat vegetation damage
  • bolting
  • additional walking paths
  • litter
    >(specifically dunny paper)
  • cliff-base erosion
... are
>the real issues they care about. The first inhabitants argument looks
>like a PV crutch to achieve these outcomes.
>
>Let's be clear: PV don't want to ban us because they hate climbing as
>an activity, they want to ban us because they think it's wrecking the place.
> Any other interpretation is simply playing the victim card.

Had to grimace on the weekend at the cathedrals, climbing a grade 14 slab climb, slathered in chalk the entire way up. It looked like an entire bag's worth (a slight exaggeration, but still!). It's an easy slab climb for gods sake. There needs to be a better education and dialog available for people on the need for chalk, and mindfulness of the effect it has on the color of the rock, and interpretation by rangers, walkers, and most importantly indigenous people.
jrc
19-Mar-2019
7:33:08 AM
The 15 March 2015 PV Rockclimbing update is still confusing.

It illustrates the 8 banned sites on a map, dated 26/2/19 or 6/3/19 depending upon which page .

It references SPAs where climbing is prohibited (at odds with Simon Talbots statement).

It shows "protected Areas" where restrictions apply but not "Special Protected Areas".

Im sure it will all become clear some time...
Access T CliffCare
19-Mar-2019
9:08:46 AM
On 19-Mar-2019 jrc wrote:
>The 15 March 2015 PV Rockclimbing update is still confusing.
>
>It illustrates the 8 banned sites on a map, dated 26/2/19 or 6/3/19 depending
>upon which page .
>
>It references SPAs where climbing is prohibited (at odds with Simon Talbots
>statement).
>
>It shows "protected Areas" where restrictions apply but not "Special Protected
>Areas".
>
>Im sure it will all become clear some time...

It's not really at odds. Simon Talbots statement only clarifies that 'no climbing in SPAs' will not be enforced ie people won't be fined. PV hasn't stated that those conditions have changed and it is not our messaging to say otherwise. I have added a little in to our update to highlight this. Further clarity is what we are working on, working on, working on...
Access T CliffCare
20-Mar-2019
3:28:53 PM
Parks Victoria have issued a FAQ page which more clearly states the current status of climbing sites in the Grampians National Park.

https://cliffcare.org.au/2019/03/20/parks-victoria-rock-climbing-update-grampians-faqs/

JamesMc
20-Mar-2019
4:37:55 PM
>It's not really at odds. Simon Talbots statement only clarifies that 'no
>climbing in SPAs' will not be enforced ie people won't be fined. PV hasn't
>stated that those conditions have changed and it is not our messaging to
>say otherwise. I have added a little in to our update to highlight this.
>Further clarity is what we are working on, working on, working on...
>
It's not clarification, it's nonsense. The law is the law. You don't want to end up in court arguing that you climbed illegally because you saw an email on the Internet purporting to be from the PV CEO saying the law wouldn't be enforced.

The good Dr
20-Mar-2019
8:50:31 PM
The question that nobody is answering ...

I note that the FAQ references page 11 of the 2003 Management Plan, which is table 3. The table states that SPAs (key item 7 on table) occupy <<1% of the Grampians National Park. The provided maps (not to scale representative maps) indicate that the SPAs are significantly greater than <<1%. Appendix 1 - page 55 names the SPAs but does not provide a reference to the delineated source for theSPA boundaries and is not referenced in any other location in the MP.

Which is correct, the written word or the representative maps. Can this be put to PV for further clarrification as this has legal and liability ramifications for PV and climbers alike.

ajfclark
21-Mar-2019
7:10:11 AM
On 20-Mar-2019 The good Dr wrote:
>The question that nobody is answering ...
>
>I note that the FAQ references page 11 of the 2003 Management Plan, which is table 3. The table states that SPAs (key item 7 on table) occupy <<1% of the Grampians National Park. The provided maps (not to scale representative maps) indicate that the SPAs are significantly greater than <<1%. Appendix 1 - page 55 names the SPAs but does not provide a reference to the delineated source for theSPA boundaries and is not referenced in any other location in the MP.
>
>Which is correct, the written word or the representative maps. Can this be put to PV for further clarrification as this has legal and liability ramifications for PV and climbers alike.

I've been repeatedly asking this question.I find it incredible that there were so many submissions to the management plan yet no one pointed out this incongruity at the time. I went back through the wayback machine and the oldest copy of the management plan I could find was from 2005. It has the same maps as the current version on Parks' website: http://web.archive.org/web/20050622211010/http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/07_0938.pdf

The new FAQ either states that the 29 new SPAs add an additional 1.2% or that SPAs comprise a total of 1.2% of the park. I assume it's the former, but either way, it's more than <<1%.
Access T CliffCare
21-Mar-2019
8:19:18 AM
On 21-Mar-2019 ajfclark wrote:
>On 20-Mar-2019 The good Dr wrote:
>>The question that nobody is answering ...
>>
>>I note that the FAQ references page 11 of the 2003 Management Plan, which
>is table 3. The table states that SPAs (key item 7 on table) occupy <<1%
>of the Grampians National Park. The provided maps (not to scale representative
>maps) indicate that the SPAs are significantly greater than <<1%. Appendix
>1 - page 55 names the SPAs but does not provide a reference to the delineated
>source for theSPA boundaries and is not referenced in any other location
>in the MP.
>>
>>Which is correct, the written word or the representative maps. Can this
>be put to PV for further clarrification as this has legal and liability
>ramifications for PV and climbers alike.
>
>I've been repeatedly asking this question.I find it incredible that there
>were so many submissions to the management plan yet no one pointed out
>this incongruity at the time. I went back through the wayback machine and
>the oldest copy of the management plan I could find was from 2005. It has
>the same maps as the current version on Parks' website: http://web.archive.org/web/2005062
>211010/http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/07_0938.pdf
>
>The new FAQ either states that the 29 new SPAs add an additional 1.2%
>or that SPAs comprise a total of 1.2% of the park. I assume it's the former,
>but either way, it's more than <<1%.

Many people have asked this question. It has also been put to PV.
They acknowledge that the Management Plan is out of date and that there are some inconsistencies. Which will be addressed with a new MP. It is also an old model of how MPs used to be created. It is not a model they use anymore.

The good Dr
21-Mar-2019
8:37:47 AM
On 21-Mar-2019 Access T CliffCare wrote:

>
>Many people have asked this question. It has also been put to PV.
>They acknowledge that the Management Plan is out of date and that there
>are some inconsistencies. Which will be addressed with a new MP. It is
>also an old model of how MPs used to be created. It is not a model they
>use anymore.

Addressing these issues in the new MP will be great, though that is not the question being asked.

The question is: how does this affect current enforcement when the 2003 MP used as the reference tool for enforcement has serious questions regarding the definition of the SPAs? The written definitions do not align with the representative drawings. Are rangers being asked to carry out enforecement works that have a questionable legal basis?

PV needed to answer this prior to conducting enforcement and 'education'. Saying it will be addressed in the future is not good enough as this does not have any bearing in the current confusing environment.

gordoste
21-Mar-2019
10:10:53 AM
PV are NOT going to rule out enforcement activities at other locations prior to the new management plan, because it is conceivable that climbers continue to damage other locations within the SPAs. If that happens, they are obliged to act.

Bottom line - do not climb in the 8 nominated locations (and ideally, don't climb in the SPAs at all). When climbing anywhere, be a responsible park user and minimise your impact. And, wait for the new management plan.

JamesMc
21-Mar-2019
3:49:34 PM
On 21-Mar-2019 ajfclark wrote:

>>I note that the FAQ references page 11 of the 2003 Management Plan, which
>is table 3. The table states that SPAs (key item 7 on table) occupy <<1%
>of the Grampians National Park. The provided maps (not to scale representative
>maps) indicate that the SPAs are significantly greater than <<1%. Appendix
>1 - page 55 names the SPAs but does not
>I've been repeatedly asking this question.I find it incredible that there
>were so many submissions to the management plan yet no one pointed out
>this incongruity at the time. I went back through the wayback machine and
>the oldest copy of the management plan I could find was from 2005. It has
>the same maps as the current version on Parks' website: http://web.archive.org/web/2005062
>211010/http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/07_0938.pdf
>
Just FOI it

Alternatively, it's in several University Libraries

JamesMc

ajfclark
21-Mar-2019
4:24:28 PM
Yeah, when I'm back in Canberra I might pop past the NLA. I'm pretty sure the 2005 version I found will be the same as the 2003 one though, but I can go for a boulder around the plinth at the same time.
kieranl
23-Mar-2019
6:23:53 AM
Question in Victorian Parliament from Emma Kealy, Member for Lowan from Hansard 20/03/2019

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (11:42): (379) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the information I seek is what alternatives to the drastic decision to close extensive areas of rock climbing sites in the Grampians National Park and Mount Arapiles have or will been investigated so that access to all established rock climbing sites can be achieved while ensuring the respect, preservation and protection of areas of Indigenous cultural significance and the environment? The recent extreme measure of extensive closures of established rock climbing sites in the Grampians National Park has caused great confusion and angst. Rock climbing is an important activity to retain in the Grampians, not just as a great way to enjoy the park but also to support fitness, tourism and local small business. Rock climbing also provides a great future opportunity to create jobs for the local Indigenous community in relation to cultural education and awareness programs and sharing their important history and link to Gariwerd. This is a complex issue, and I am happy to provide a briefing to the minister. I believe there is a strong pathway available to preserve sites of cultural significance, particularly rock art sites, and to retain access to the best rock climbing in the world. I therefore ask the minister to provide information regarding alternatives available.


Jamesmc
25-Mar-2019
3:57:16 PM

>>I note that the FAQ references page 11 of the 2003 Management Plan, which
>is table 3. The table states that SPAs (key item 7 on table) occupy <<1%
>of the Grampians National Park. The provided maps (not to scale representative
>maps) indicate that the SPAs are significantly greater than <<1%. Appendix
>1 - page 55 names the SPAs but does not provide a reference to the delineated
>source for the SPA boundaries and is not referenced in any other location
>in the MP.
>>
>>Which is correct, the written word or the representative maps. Can this
>be put to PV for further clarrification as this has legal and liability
>ramifications for PV and climbers alike.
>
>I've been repeatedly asking this question. I find it incredible that there
>were so many submissions to the management plan yet no one pointed out
>this incongruity at the time. I went back through the wayback machine and
>the oldest copy of the management plan I could find was from 2005. It has
>the same maps as the current version on Parks' website: http://web.archive.org/web/2005062
>211010/http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/07_0938.pdf

Having read the 2003 plan, the obvious answer to the question is that climbing would not be prohibited in the full extent of the Special Protection Areas but at a << 1% subset of the park with issues. Page 43 says "In consultation with the rock climbing community, consider, and as appropriate:...close climbs that conflict with Aboriginal cultural sites, significant flora and fauna or other park values and signpost accordingly".

This seems totally reasonable to me, shame it's not what happened.
crr
9-Apr-2019
1:01:23 PM
Parks Vic Frame Climbers – Get Caught Out

https://savegrampiansclimbing.org/2019/04/05/bumbling-bureaucrats-frame-climbers-get-caught-out/

The good Dr
9-Apr-2019
8:29:07 PM
Interestingly there are art sites next to tourist trails that are continuing to be graffitied that PV is doing nothing about. A cave near Beehive Falls is a prime example. I will post a few pics soon to demonstrate this lazy, inconsistent approach that PV is taking to enforcing protection of vulnerable cultural heritage sites. This is being in part driven by internal PV politics rather than any kind of strategic plan.

 Page 8 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 205
There are 205 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints