Plan to ban climbers from Uluru

[Feral Abacus]

ABC.net.au

Plan to ban climbers from Uluru

Climbing to the top of Uluru could be banned in the near future under a proposed draft plan for the popular Central Australian tourist destination.

The Director of National Parks today released a draft 10-year management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, which is visited by about 350,000 people a year, about half of whom are from overseas.

The traditional landowners have long been opposed to people climbing the 346 metre high rock, which is considered sacred.

Safety concerns have also been raised, with more than 35 deaths recorded on the climb, which can be steep, slippery and extremely hot.

At present, visitors are advised to respect the wishes of the traditional owners, but about 30 per cent of people choose to climb, many of them children.

The draft plan, which is open to public comment for the next two months, proposes to close the rock climb in the future.

"For visitor safety, cultural, and environmental reasons the Director and the Board will work towards closure of the climb," the plan states, although it says in the short-term the climb will remain open.

The plan notes that recent surveys show 98 per cent of people would not be put off visiting the area if they are not allowed to climb the rock.

It says Parks Australia will continue to work with the tourism industry to provide unique and rewarding experiences at Uluru.

Timetable

The Director of National Parks, Peter Cochrane, said it would take at least a year before a final plan for the park was approved by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett.

It could then take many more months before the climb could finally be closed, so as not to impact heavily on the tourism industry.

"We will ensure that if there are any major changes to what we do, there will be sufficient lead time for the industry to adjust," Mr Cochrane said.

He said safety, environmental and cultural factors had played a part in the push to close the climb.

"It is very steep, very slippery, strenuous.

"It's higher than the Eiffel Tower, so up until 2000 more than 30 people had died on the climb.

"We still have over a dozen injuries and incidents every year.

"There's erosion concerns and there are no toilets on the top of the rock.

"So human behaviour up there means that we get run-off fouling water holes, and having impacts on plants and animals and the health of Aboriginal kids who play in those water holes.

"And culturally, Uluru is very significant to traditional owners."

The Tourism and Transport Forum said the preservation of Uluru has to be done in a way that respects traditional owners' wishes and takes into account the contributions the tourism industry brings to the area.

"If there was an eventual close to the climb, in line with the demands of the traditional owners of Uluru, the tourism industry would respect this position," TTF managing director, Christopher Brown, said.

"However, operators and investors would need to be given time and assistance to develop new interactive experiences which expand the park's tourism offering."

Mr Brown says it is important to ensure the move to close the climb does not hurt tourist operators.

"In ensuring a continued attraction for tourists around the country and around the world to go there, we need to look at timing, maybe compensation for operators," he said.

"We would need to look at opening up other experiences in Central Australia to increase the average length of stay for people to longer than it currently is.

"We recognise that operating in culturally and environmentally sensitive areas is a serious responsibility.

"At the same time, we want to ensure employment and economic opportunities for regional communities."

I'm not sure if this belongs here, it's not exactly politics but i think it's newsworthy.

The local indigenous population at Uluru have been opposed to people climbing the rock for thousands of years, but disputes about climbing really began in 1985 when ownership was transferred over to the local aboriginal population. There are signs asking tourists not to climb because the locals believe that it is sacred, and there are already some pretty major restrictions on when you are allowed to go up- you can't go at night, or at certain times in the year. The Uluru-Kata Tjuta website even says 'please do not climb Uluru'. Which is fair enough.

Personally I think it would be a real shame to close it off to climbers. The view from the top is really amazing, and the rock is more than just an indigenous cultural relic, it's a national icon. As I understand it, no one has died from falling off in about 10 years. I was planning on going back the the top end at some point, and I would be disappointed if I couldn't go back up to the top. If you're planning on going you'd better get in before 2011.

[Rogue 9]

"There are no toilets on the top of the rock." Fucking duh. Are there supposed to be?

[Serafina]

Well, if it belongs to the aborriginies and they do not want anyone to climb it, they have the right to ban it.

There are also some good non-religious arguments - tourism is rarely good for such enviorments, which are normally pretty delicate.

Personally, i would install a lift to the top (sparring the enviorment the strain of climbing) and a "visitors area" with some accomodations (such as toilets). Tjhis way, you can both protect most of its enviorment and still allow tourism.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Personally, i would install a lift to the top (sparring the enviorment the strain of climbing) and a "visitors area" with some accomodations (such as toilets). Tjhis way, you can both protect most of its enviorment and still allow tourism.

You must be fucking retarded if you think building A MOTHERFUCKING LIFT [ps that may require FOUNDATIONS and POWER CABLES and EXCAVATION] is in any way shape or form going to protect the environment of Uluru.

[Starglider]

The source of the problem appears to be the ambiguity with which the Australian government approached the land transfer. If the land was unconditionally owned and managed by the tribal organisation there would be no legal debate (and climbing would long since have been banned). If the land was still fully government owned I'm sure they'd be whining but no one would be obliged to take them seriously.

Ethically I give zero weight to any claims that other people's mere presence in a public area can offend you - the particulars of your superstitions are irrelevant. I assume the cost of rescue for stranded and wounded climbers is recovered and thus this is also a non-factor. There may be merit in the erosion claims, but if so I would expect that is a problem with the equipment used (e.g. old-fashioned pitons instead of non-destructive cams) rather than the (relatively light) human traffic itself. You could always restrict the number of climbers per year and allocate tickets by lottery, and/or charge for the privilidge and fund basic waste management facilities (e.g. a latrine emptied by a helicopter once a month) with the proceeds.

[Serafina]

You must be fucking retarded if you think building A MOTHERFUCKING LIFT [ps that may require FOUNDATIONS and POWER CABLES and EXCAVATION] is in any way shape or form going to protect the environment of Uluru.

It has been done quite some times in the alpes for exactly that purpose.

After all, those foundations do not harm the enviorment once they are placed. You have to be carefull while constructing them, but it can be done without too much harm.
Compare this to having tourists climb it, which produces a lot of garbage and a constant strain to the enviorment, a lift is a viable option.
Unless you are bothered with looks, that is.

[Starglider]

It has been done quite some times in the alpes for exactly that purpose.

Do you mean a cable car? I could see that working. The visual impact is relatively limited - and a gondola lift (which requires a lot more supports) is probably out of the question anyway due to the steep sides. The ideal solution would be a tunnel starting some way from the base and then ascending within the formation, which would be invisible, but that would be implausibly expensive to construct. Either solution would no doubt provoke a hurricane of whining from the religious people.

Compare this to having tourists climb it, which produces a lot of garbage and a constant strain to the enviorment, a lift is a viable option.

Only a tiny fraction of the tourists are actually capable of climbing the rock. If you made access easy there would be far more garbage and general activity on top - though presumably you'd install toilets and litter bins and restrict tourists to a small viewing area.

Unless you are bothered with looks, that is.

That does seem to be the main attraction of the site, for most tourists.

[hongi]

We don't climb St Peter's Basilica. It's a sacred site to the local Aboriginals. Leave it alone. A lot of these people, including foreign tourists, probably never even think of its spiritual significance or wouldn't care. They want to get to the top, get some photos just to say that they've done it. Is it going to kill them to take helicopter rides around it instead? How about just enjoying it from the ground?

[Serafina]

Do you mean a cable car? I could see that working. The visual impact is relatively limited - and a gondola lift (which requires a lot more supports) is probably out of the question anyway due to the steep sides. The ideal solution would be a tunnel starting some way from the base and then ascending within the formation, which would be invisible, but that would be implausibly expensive to construct. Either solution would no doubt provoke a hurricane of whining from the religious people.

Well, i meant a Gondola lift (i'm just linking it to be sure i'm using the right words), but a cable railway is another good idea.
Whether or not they are feasible from an engineering-pov, well, i honestly do not know enough to be sure which one would be the better solution.

Only a tiny fraction of the tourists are actually capable of climbing the rock. If you made access easy there would be far more garbage and general activity on top - though presumably you'd install toilets and litter bins and restrict tourists to a small viewing area.

Yes, thats what i proposed. Of course, it will damage parts of the enviorment, but it will be controlled. Similar to, say, Yellowstone National Park.

That does seem to be the main attraction of the site, for most tourists.

Well, yes, but neither a gondola lift nor a cable railroad will ruin the overall image that much - and being able to get on top of it will propably attract more tourists.

We don't climb St Peter's Basilica. It's a sacred site to the local Aboriginals. Leave it alone.

St Peters Basilica is a building, created by humans, while Uluru is a natural, giant rock. Also, tourists are not banned from St Peters Basilica (IIRC, at least not from churches in general).
And, as is already said:

Well, if it belongs to the aborriginies and they do not want anyone to climb it, they have the right to ban it.

But from a secular POV, i would deem my proposion the better one - you still protect most of its enviorment and it will propably attract more tourists.

[hongi]

St Peters Basilica is a building, created by humans, while Uluru is a natural, giant rock.

Both have significance to people who consider them holy sites. It's their sanctity that is the issue in this debate, not what they're made out of.

Also, tourists are not banned from St Peters Basilica (IIRC, at least not from churches in general).

The Aboriginals don't want to ban tourists, they want to ban tourists from climbing it. That seems fair to me. The article states:

The plan notes that recent surveys show 98 per cent of people would not be put off visiting the area if they are not allowed to climb the rock.

[Starglider]

Do you mean a cable car? I could see that working. The visual impact is relatively limited - and a gondola lift (which requires a lot more supports) is probably out of the question anyway due to the steep sides.

Well, i meant a Gondola lift (i'm just linking it to be sure i'm using the right words), but a cable railway is another good idea.

Actually I meant an aerial tramway, common in Europe for taking people to steep peaks and viewpoints where the first two options aren't practical. The fact that it involves much less disruption of the existing scenery is a bonus.

Whether or not they are feasible from an engineering-pov, well, i honestly do not know enough to be sure which one would be the better solution.

You'd have to do massive excavation and/or embankment construction on the side of the rock to make a railway possible, and gondola lifts need lots of supports; thick steeply angled ones bolted to big reinforced concrete foundations, in this case. Not good.

Well, yes, but neither a gondola lift nor a cable railroad will ruin the overall image that much

Both your options would be highly noticeable from one side. Even on a mountain you can see these things from kilometres away, and this formation is relatively tiny. An aerial tramway is better, since there's just the two stations at the top and bottom and no impact on the slope inbetween. That's academic though since none of these are going to be built unless the Technocratic Progressive Liberation Army conquers Australia.

[zircon]

We don't climb St Peter's Basilica. It's a sacred site to the local Aboriginals. Leave it alone. A lot of these people, including foreign tourists, probably never even think of its spiritual significance or wouldn't care. They want to get to the top, get some photos just to say that they've done it. Is it going to kill them to take helicopter rides around it instead? How about just enjoying it from the ground?

They allow tourists inside the Basilica, a valid comparison would be that tourists could look at it from outside but couldn't enter, which it doesn't.

In Sweden there's a law called the "Allemansrätten" that basically gives the public the right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.

I agree with that line of thought and think it's ridiculous to ban people because of the 'sanctity' of the place, if the tourists caused any sort of significant damage to the mountain you'd have a point but they don't.

[hongi]

I actually rock climb, and climbing Uluru would be around the bottom of the grading scale due to the installation of chains for handholds. There's a similar sort of situation in America apparently, rock climbing is forbidden in Monument Valley because it's sacred to the Najavo Nation. They own it, they can set the rules.

In Sweden there's a law called the "Allemansrätten" that basically gives the public the right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.

Wow, that would be a rock climber's dream. What if the property owner doesn't want the public to access it?

I agree with that line of thought and think it's ridiculous to ban people because of the 'sanctity' of the place

I guess we stand on opposite sides here. I don't accept that the place is holy, but I understand that other people consider it holy. I know what you're saying, that if they want to ban it they should use an argument that applies to both parties. And they might do that. But I have to say that I don't see a problem with them banning certain actions based on their religious views.

[zircon]

In Sweden there's a law called the "Allemansrätten" that basically gives the public the right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.

Wow, that would be a rock climber's dream. What if the property owner doesn't want the public to access it?

Sucks to be him i guess, don't misunderstand though, it doesn't allow you to walk into someone's garden and pilfer their apples, it just ensures that people can freely wander through forests, mountains and other large areas of land.

[hongi]

We have massive problems in Australia and America because one or two climbers leave their rubbish or pull the plants out and then the property owners get pissed off (rightly), but then they slam the door on all the other climbers. We have to tread carefully all the time, whether it be the National Park authorities or the local landlord. Sweden sounds nice.

[Serafina]

Well, i can not tell how this is handled in Sweden, but we have a similar law in Germany (actually, its in the Grundgesetz (constitution).

Artikel 14
(1) Das Eigentum und das Erbrecht werden gewährleistet. Inhalt und Schranken werden durch die Gesetze bestimmt.

(2) Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.
(3)...

rough translation:

§14:
(1) The right of property and inheritance are guaranteed. further specified by law.
(2) Property obligates. It's use must serve common (public?) wellfare

If you, for example, own a forest, you are to permit access unless this access is damaging your (financial) interests or it is dangerous (due to, say, old ammunition). Similary, if you own a piece of seaside (or lakeside), you have to permit access as long as does not harm your personal interest, your personal space (if you live there) or it is dangerous.
But if you own a piece of agricultural land, you are of course allowed to bare the public from entering it.
It does NOT mean that the public is allowed to invade any piece of privately owned land - but it bares you from shutting off whole areas of un-used land.

Of course, you can sue if the owner tries to permit access (say, with fences or barbed wire). And it actually happens, too, though rarely. Most landowner keep it reasonable, because they know they can not bring the police to enforce it.

[Lusankya]

Actually I meant an aerial tramway, common in Europe for taking people to steep peaks and viewpoints where the first two options aren't practical. The fact that it involves much less disruption of the existing scenery is a bonus.

The trouble with that is, I imagine, that you don't particularly care whether or not you cut into the mountain or whatever it is you're building the cableway up to. I imagine that there would be quite some controversy in Australia from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people regarding cutting bits out of the largest monolith in the world. Aside from the fact that putting a cableway over it would completely ruin the view, cutting into it just seems damned wrong. To get a cableway up there without damaging the rock, you'd have to have a pylon over 300m high.

[Feral Abacus]

Any kind of construction on the face of Uluru (other than the handrail they have now) would be pretty much out of the question as far as all parties are concerned. Uluru is considered an iconic formation which people visit for it's visual appeal, it's not a ski field. Any kind of major human construction on it would look garish and ruin that aesthetic. It's also Heritage Listed, so I doubt that would ever happen.

Uluru isn't really private property in the way that the Vatican is- it's a jointly managed national park. The decisions in the new management plan ultimately have to be approved by the Environment Minister. The desires of the local indigenous community to ban climbing have to be balanced against the equally legitimate desires of sightseers to experience it, I believe. If climbing was restricted to certain times of the year to a reduced number of people, that would be a better solution than just shutting it off to everyone.

[Edi]

In Sweden there's a law called the "Allemansrätten" that basically gives the public the right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise.

Wow, that would be a rock climber's dream. What if the property owner doesn't want the public to access it?

He's free to go sodomize himself in most cases.

These "Every Man's Rights" exist in Finland as well and they mean that aside from the immediate vicinity of a dwelling (taken mostly to mean that you need to stay 50 to 100 meters away), you have free right to enter private property such as forests, swamps etc and you are also free to pick berries and mushrooms. Fishing with a basic pole (stick + string + float + hook) is also allowed without permission. Camping and making fire requires permission from the property owner.

EMR has been in existence in Finland, Sweden and Norway for around one hundred years in its present form, probably longer than that in actuality. Of course, there is the obligation to leave things in good condition, not littering etc.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with that line of thought and think it's ridiculous to ban people because of the 'sanctity' of the place

I guess we stand on opposite sides here. I don't accept that the place is holy, but I understand that other people consider it holy. I know what you're saying, that if they want to ban it they should use an argument that applies to both parties. And they might do that. But I have to say that I don't see a problem with them banning certain actions based on their religious views.

I agree with hongi.

If it's my rock, I can allow or disallow climbing on it for any reason or none. I can do it to preserve the delicate ecosystem, or because I want the top of the rock all to myself, or because I think the gods live on top of the rock, or whatever. It's my rock.

If Ayers' Rock* rightly belongs to a group of people who think the rock is sacred and want to disallow climbing for that reason, they have the right to do so even if you and I both think it's stupid.

*Which is, in my opinion, the English name for Uluru, just as English-speakers call the capital of Russia "Moscow" and not "Moskva"...

[Broomstick]

I find it rather disturbing that some people so cavalierly disparage the desire of the aborigines - the original owners of Uluru who were unwillingly dispossessed by superior force - to preserve the big rock in as pristine a state as possible. Installing a tram or whatever to provide access to the top is a horrific idea, it will destroy the iconic look of the rock forever as, even if such a system was removed, you could never restore the rockface to its original state.

The fact is that you do NOT have an unfettered right to tramp across the face of the planet.

Maybe it's just that in the US we are now accustomed to some places owned by the natives being off-limits to everyone else - parts of the Grand Canyon, for example, may only be entered via permission of the resident Native tribe (who then outraged some folks by installing that glass walkway, hoping to cash in on the tourist trade, and the Anglos were outraged that the Natives couldn't be stopped but hey, it's their land, not the property of environmental groups or the US park service), or certain Pueblos in the southwest, or parts of Navajo territory.

Maybe if the natives around Uluru were confident in the ability to actually regulate access they wouldn't be so opposed to all access - but people proposing, in all seriousness, tramways to get around native objections just goes to show that their fears are entirely justified.

[Aaron]

I wonder if the Natives would be willing to ferry people up in a small helicopter, provided folks pay. Sort of an eco-tourism deal.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe it's just that in the US we are now accustomed to some places owned by the natives being off-limits to everyone else - parts of the Grand Canyon, for example, may only be entered via permission of the resident Native tribe (who then outraged some folks by installing that glass walkway, hoping to cash in on the tourist trade, and the Anglos were outraged that the Natives couldn't be stopped but hey, it's their land, not the property of environmental groups or the US park service), or certain Pueblos in the southwest, or parts of Navajo territory.

There are lot of Americans with a nasty little subconscious voice telling them that Indians are noble savages... a voice that is shocked to discover evidence that "not like us" doesn't mean "stupid" or "frozen in time."

[Starglider]

the aborigines - the original owners of Uluru

'Owners'? Why should they be the 'owners', other than happening to visit it first? Did they do anything to improve the land or make it economically productive? Did they in fact do anything with it other than have drug trips and parties (aka 'spiritual ceremonies') there? No they did not, and it is not as if the state of this rock has any real bearing on the maintenance of aboriginal culture - just aboriginal pride. They have no more claim to it than other Australians.

Installing a tram or whatever to provide access to the top is a horrific idea, it will destroy the iconic look of the rock forever as, even if such a system was removed, you could never restore the rockface to its original state.

The alterations would be invisible from any distance, and really, it would affect such a small fraction of the rock that if you removed it no one would be able to tell the difference without before and after photos and a magnifying glass.

Although come to think of it, a tunnel might not be all that impractical. Last time I visited southern Ireland, we visited to a cave complex that had a 150 metre tunnel bored into the cliffs to make tourist access easier. That was for a relatively obscure site that couldn't have gotten more than 50,000 visitors a year or so. If they could afford that, a tunnel up through Ayers Rock could probably be funded by admission charges.

The fact is that you do NOT have an unfettered right to tramp across the face of the planet.

'Rights' as non-essential as this can and should be granted on a cost/benefit basis. It is quite possible that the enjoyment the current climbers get is not worth the errosion, trash and pollution, but I'm fairly confident that the benefits to millions of tourists and the local economy would be worth installing a cable car, for the cost of some wholly arbitrary indignation in people who believe they have sole authority over the area because their great-great-grandparents lived there while their rivals great-grandparents were immigrants.

but people proposing, in all seriousness, tramways to get around native objections just goes to show that their fears are entirely justified.

Of course they are, and religious people being scared of losing their ability to dictate terms to the rest of society is always a good thing.

[Broomstick]

I wonder if the Natives would be willing to ferry people up in a small helicopter, provided folks pay. Sort of an eco-tourism deal.

I suspect giving the natives a cut of the tourist money might go a long way to getting them to compromise on access.

A chopper would be less invasive in many ways, but would no doubt offend somebody. However, it's not a matter of ecology or tree-hugging as we in the west would see it that is motivating them, it's a matter of leaving the rock alone, preserved in its original state save for a very few traditional uses on the part of the natives. Even before the white man came access to Uluru was restricted, wasn't it? It's not like just any aborigine could traipse up and down it on a whim. Yes, this is based a good part on religion, but there is also the matter of culture - aborigine culture did not do a lot of altering of things, and preserving the landscape was important not only from a religious viewpoint but also, very much so, for practical reasons such as setting tribal boundaries and, even more important, preserving navigational landmarks that allowed travel and allowed people to find sources of food and water in a harsh landscape.