Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Uluru ethics

Duncan

28-Apr-2008
11:49:39 PM

On 28/04/2008 kieranl wrote:
>For most of its height the crack of Kangaroos Tail is a runnerless chimney

So you're saying take a drill then?


rodw

29-Apr-2008
8:00:56 AM

On 28/04/2008 Duncan wrote:
>On 28/04/2008 kieranl wrote:
>>For most of its height the crack of Kangaroos Tail is a runnerless chimney
>
>So you're saying take a drill then?

Now we are talking.

earwig

29-Apr-2008
9:51:33 AM

Other Aboriginal sites I've visited have been taboo for certain members of the community and not for others - men's sites, women's sites, bunjil people and so on - and the community had no problem with people visiting. The reason for the taboos is to maintain the community's social structure (basically, to keep those in control in control) and they generally don't apply to people outside the community. All societies have these "taboos", whether it is the Catholic Church or the National Party.

Climb the rock. Then try the east face of St Pat's Cathedral ... great moves over the Jeff Kennett Gargoyle.

adgoneclimbing

29-Apr-2008
10:34:37 AM

i'm not sure if I'm the only one.... but it annoys me that humans pave paths up everything 'sacred' or not to get a better view. Half Dome is a classic example, such a classic formation and ample other vantage points on other formations to get a similiar view, but hey lets put a massive engineering feat tourist ladder up the back.

I reckon there should places that are hard to get to or that you can't get to (there aren't many out there so why not have a few)... leaves a bit of mystery and maybe some respect for nature (that it is too hard for joe public to climb up).

This 'climb everything' attitude regardless of other issues that some climbers have is the sort of thinking that gets crags closed and landowners pissed off.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

29-Apr-2008
10:42:59 AM

On 29/04/2008 adgoneclimbing wrote:
>This 'climb everything' attitude regardless of other issues that some
>climbers have is the sort of thinking that gets crags closed and landowners
>pissed off.

Given some indication in posts above, ... ~> unless there is a $ in it?

I tend to agree with you and think that it is what some would call the 'human spirit' to dominate everything (including nature), and then it degenerates further into becoming a 'safety issue'; and so you end up with paved access to places like what NP&WS are doing in the Warrumbungles ...

It is ironic that the flip side of the coin is anarchistic people climbing things when the authorities try to prevent it! ... ~> I wonder if this also applied within indigenous cultures in olden times?

Imo nature has the last laugh, as our engineering feats pale into insignificance when put into true perspective; especially when our mortality is presented face to face with the consequence of our actions/disdain.

On 29/04/2008 earwig wrote:
>Climb the rock. Then try the east face of St Pat's Cathedral ... great
>moves over the Jeff Kennett Gargoyle.

Like it; like it a lot!
Heh, heh, heh.

grangrump

29-Apr-2008
11:14:59 AM

One of us went up, the other (anthropologist) did not.
The one who did found the friction far better a few metres from the cable (and the going faster). Take a bag and pick up some rubbish at the top; you'll easily end up with enough spare hats for some years.
If you do go up, have a look around. 99% of the tourists just go to the cairn and back, but there is a huge area atop, with gullies and pools.


Mike

29-Apr-2008
1:58:02 PM

I went up it in may last year. There would have been hundreds of people on it that day. When you stand at the base looking up, particularly after sitting in a car for two days of continuous driving, it just begs to be hiked. Basically the urge was impossible to resist. For me it really made the trip.

And yes, I did the base walk and the Olgas as well, but it's not the same. There is something magical up there on the top. Something about being Australian, (despite not having the 40,000 year heritage), I could still feel something, some sort of affinity and grandeur, size, cosmic relevance, relationship to the earth - hard to say what but it's there and however fleeting worth experiencing, just as it's worth experiencing, let's say, Cradle Mt, even though it's also covered in tourists. Could you go to Cradle and just walk around Dove Lake, without at least getting up to Marion's lookout or Kitchen Hut? Put it this way, if you go to Ayres, do the summit on a fine day, and walk away feeling it was nothing special, I'd be very surprised. Whether or not you should be allowed that experience is perhaps another question, but I personally would do it again, if I was there tomorrow.


rodw

29-Apr-2008
3:19:28 PM

I agree with you Mike, Ive been and climbed it..very much a highlight.

People can have their beliefs, and can choose not to climb it but shouldn't enforce it on others...its public space after all.

Much like eating fish on Fridays for Catholic, imagine if someone started trying to make sure meat wasn't served in restaurants because it offended them...your beliefs are for you and you only and shouldn't be forced on others.

But the real question no one has seemed to ask..do you reckon we should use rings/U's on new routes on the rock...or will expansion bolts and hangers suffice?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

29-Apr-2008
3:24:44 PM

On 29/04/2008 rodw wrote:
>But the real question no one has seemed to ask..do you reckon we should
>use rings/U's on new routes on the rock...or will expansion bolts and hangers
>suffice?

You will have to ask the aboriginal custodians that question, or maybe just observe what method they use / the local ethics, when they put up any new routes.
~> otherwise you will be labled as a retrobolter.

Heh, heh, heh.

29-Apr-2008
6:39:05 PM

On 29/04/2008 rodw wrote:
>People can have their beliefs, and can choose not to climb it but shouldn't
>enforce it on others...its public space after all.

no it's not - it's their land, leased to National Parks for 99 years. we are there only with their permission.


rodw

29-Apr-2008
8:20:06 PM

On 29/04/2008 WM wrote:
>no it's not - it's their land, leased to National Parks for 99 years.
>we are there only with their permission.

Then for 99 years it aint theirs anymore...the power of the dollar :).

30-Apr-2008
9:03:08 AM

the locals retain joint management authority with Parks. But you're right the power of the dollar (= massive lobbying from the tourism industry protecting their #1 money spinner) is openly admitted to be the main reason why they haven't closed the climb outright.

Bob Saki

30-Apr-2008
9:15:30 AM

On 29/04/2008 WM wrote:
>On 29/04/2008 rodw wrote:
>>People can have their beliefs, and can choose not to climb it but shouldn't
>>enforce it on others...its public space after all.
>
>no it's not - it's their land, leased to National Parks for 99 years.
>we are there only with their permission.

Well it's not really their land either, how can one claim a natural phenomenon such as Ayers Rock?

Climb it and enjoy it and treat it with the respect you would treat any other crag.


rodw

30-Apr-2008
9:27:12 AM

The leasing arrangment is very wierd...kinda like a car salesman leasing you a car but asking you not to drive it for the life of the lease...the elders or who whoever signed that lease are the only ones responsible for the fact people are now allowed to climb it and just try and use the "dont climb it by respect" line to justify there own greed/stupidity/niaveity..take your pick.


BigMike

30-Apr-2008
10:46:34 AM

On 30/04/2008 rodw wrote:
>the >elders or who whoever signed that lease are the only ones responsible for
>the fact people are now allowed to climb it and just try and use the "dont
>climb it by respect" line to justify there own greed/stupidity/niaveity..take
>your pick.

"On 11 December 1983, then-Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke promised to hand back the land title to the Aṉangu traditional owners and agreed to the community's 10-point plan which included forbidding the climbing of Uluru. However, the government set access to climb Uluru and a 99-year lease, instead of the previously agreed upon 50-year lease, as conditions before the title was officially given back to the Aṉangu."

It's possible they didn't have much negotiating power over that arrangement.

Bob Saki

30-Apr-2008
10:49:18 AM

well are you going to climb it Mike or soft out of it? ;-)

I'd be pretty sure after the lease expires you will still be able to walk it with a paid aboriginal guide, believe me they'll need the money...


BigMike

30-Apr-2008
10:57:26 AM

On 30/04/2008 Bob Saki wrote:
>well are you going to climb it Mike or soft out of it? ;-)

I'm still not sure. To be honest I didn't expect the vote to be so close.

What is interesting is that the vote is running half-and-half (perhaps tilting to "no", cos I think the "make up your mind there" option is an acknowledgement that the Aboriginal concerns have merit) ...

... but the significant majority of comments on the thread support the "yes" vote.

Why no coherent arguments for not climbing? Could it be that people who hold those views keep them quiet for fear of appearing "soft"?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

30-Apr-2008
11:00:28 AM

At the risk of thread hijack ...
For those that have climbed it by the standard tourist route, what grade* would you give it?
Just curious as I have not been there, and Mikes photo up higher makes the moves (off the polished-way?), look a bit crumbly/flakey

(*For the moves only, ie disregard using the handrail/chain).

~> may be an old guide from back in the historical days has this info?


rodw

30-Apr-2008
11:12:19 AM

Grade 3 would be my opinion....crux is the chicken ledge or getting past the Japanese chicks in high heels.

The rock seems very solid TBH.......looks flakey but they are pretty well attached.

What would peoples opinions be if Araps was given back to traditional owners and they said dont climb out of respect? - or does the feel good respect call only come because it dosnt really affect your day to day climbing?
(Note not having a go at anyone, just exploring the reasons poeple say don't climb the rock)

"The Djurid Balug aboriginal clan inhabited the nearby area for thousands of years prior to the European colonisation of Australia. They used the mountain's hard sandstone for making various stone tools, and found shelter in its many gullies and small caves. Following European settlement in the mid 1840s, the Djurid Balud were displaced from the area, leading to the breaking up of the clan.
Some of their descendants still live in the area and there are also a number of archaeological sites nearby. Indeed, a survey of Mount Arapiles in 1992 located no less than 42 Aboriginal archaeological sites, including "quarries" for hard stone for implements, scarred trees and rock art sites"


IdratherbeclimbingM9

30-Apr-2008
11:40:37 AM

Interesting question rodw.

It would be comforting to know that negotiation could take place and an informed decision made, however given the debate amongst climbers over other issues, I strongly suspect there would be many anarchists to whatever result was agreed.

... It seems to me that for some folk sometimes the forbidden fruit is the sweetest(!), and are not rock climbers basically (selfish) risk takers at heart?

There are 91 messages in this topic.