Plan to ban climbers from Uluru

[Starglider]

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.

We could nuke Ayers Rock and it would still be a recognisable landmark. You'd have to systematically quarry most of it away to make it an unrecognisable mound. The notion that a few climbers or even millions of tourists traipsing up a stepped causeway cut right into the rock could significantly change its overall profile is ludicrous.

[zircon]

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"...

Sometimes the right to control your own property has to be invaded for the benefit of all, if we didn't we'd live in a sad and culturally poor world.

The right for the public to experience the view is just as important as their religious beliefs, and the ownership that you claim trumps all.

If someone discovered a life prolonging agent would it be ok for him to control it however he wanted, a longer life isn't a necessity nor will it cure diseases but his 'ownership' would be trumped in a second as such a discovery belongs to all of humanity, just as that rock belongs to humanity because it is part of human history.

And as a precaution, no, you can't enter my house, it's not exactly what i would call an object of cultural significance.

Edit: To clarify, if the tourists caused damage or couldn't stop littering the place then there would be more of a reason to ban access.

[Broomstick]

the aborigines - the original owners of Uluru

'Owners'? Why should they be the 'owners', other than happening to visit it first?

As a general rule, prior occupation is seen as a claim to ownership everywhere else in the world. The aborigines beat everyone else to Uluru by about 40,000 years (or more). That is definitely "prior occupation".

Did they do anything to improve the land or make it economically productive?

It's in the middle of the fucking desert! WHAT do you propose they should have done with it, given their technology? Preserving the landscape was what turned out to be a survival trait in the Outback, including preserving landmarks that guided the knowledgeable to water, food, and shelter.

What does one have to "improve" land, anyhow? What is "economically productive"? For hunter-gatherers that means sharing resources - including access to some areas - in such a way as to not over-use any of it so that it continues to remain viable. Why is putting up a tramway somehow inherently better than having the self-control not to fuck with a valuable resource?

Strip mining and farming practices that leave land eroded and less fertile are all seen as "economic production" but it does jack shit for anyone who either lived on the land or has any desire to in the future.

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.

Bullshit. If you alter the landmarks you fuck up all the culture tied to those landmarks and that land. The landmarks and the songs/stories about them are how the aborigines navigated the landscape, and how they found the necessary resources to survive in it. Imagine tearing up every map, and destroying every GPS, compass, and navigational tool in North America or Europe or Asia - THAT is what altering the landscape does to aboriginal culture.

And if all they use it for is parties and "drug trips" - so fucking what? There aren't other rocks on the planet for you to climb? This rock isn't special to YOU, it's special to the natives. Why can't you let them have their damn rock and go elsewhere?

Of course, it can't be restored to what it was before. A lot of it is gone forever. All the more reason not to fuck up what's left.

They have no more claim to it than other Australians.

That's like saying the Germans should own France because they stole it fair and square in WWII. Taking by force doesn't make it right, it's still theft. If their ancestors had SOLD the place MAYBE your claim might be true but we all know that's not what happened, don't we?

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.

If someone removed your left kidney you could still have a normal life, really it would affect such a small fraction of your body, the scar would be invisible from any distance....

Are you seriously telling me a tramway wouldn't be noticeable? Bullshit.

The helicopter ride to the top is FAR less altering of the rock and I doubt even that alternative would be acceptable.

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.

If it's a non-essential "right" how can you possibly justify forcing this on the local inhabitants?

Frankly, rock climbers are not the only people with a say in who has access to places, even in public parks. Do I really want to go on a scenery enjoying hike in, say, Devil's Lake, Wisconsin only to see a cliff face strewn with ropes and gear and grunting, swearing climbers likely to drop crap on people below them or, worse yet, screw up and fall on them? How is their enjoyment of rock climbing more valuable than my enjoyment of a hike with natural views (shorts clad buttocks not being at all natural)?

Historically, the aborigines have NEVER benefited at all from the tourism around Uluru. It's not a matter of benefiting the "local economy", it's a matter of benefiting a sub-section of the local economy while greatly upsetting the rest of the locals, who get nothing.

And keep in mind those "immigrants" didn't just move in next door - the systematically tried to exterminate the natives in many parts of Australia and all too often succeeded. Maybe the survivors of that genocide should be given a little extra consideration in compensation.

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.

So... when are you planning to knock down St. Peter's in Rome and build a whorehouse? How about we reduce the Parthenon to rubble - it's just an old temple anyhow, so who the fuck cares? Oh, and those Egyptian pyramids - religious rubbish, let's grind them up for concrete to pave roads. Because religious objects couldn't possibly also have a historical value outside of their religious status, could they?

[Broomstick]

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.

We could nuke Ayers Rock and it would still be a recognisable landmark. You'd have to systematically quarry most of it away to make it an unrecognisable mound. The notion that a few climbers or even millions of tourists traipsing up a stepped causeway cut right into the rock could significantly change its overall profile is ludicrous.

If I take a black permanent marker and scribble over the surface of the Mona Lisa it would still be the Mona Lisa, wouldn't it?

If I nuked the Taj Mahal it would still be the Taj Mahal, wouldn't it? Or at least the component parts, right?

Why the fuck are you so upset at the notion of leaving it alone? Why is it so important that people be allowed to climb up and down that particular rock?

[Broomstick]

Sometimes the right to control your own property has to be invaded for the benefit of all, if we didn't we'd live in a sad and culturally poor world.

Yes, but such things should not be done lightly. Usurpation of property rights should only be done if it is TRULY for the common good. While yanking the rug out from under the aborigines might be good for the climbers, it would NOT be good for the aborigines. You know, the people who live there as opposed to visitors. Why should the enjoyment of tourists take precedence over the interests/happiness/opinions of the natives? What makes the happiness of a rock climber more important than the happiness of an aborigine? Especially when the overwhelming number of visitors to Uluru apparently would not stop visiting if they were no longer allowed to climb it?

The right for the public to experience the view is just as important as their religious beliefs, and the ownership that you claim trumps all.

Why?

I realize that this board is full of atheists and there's a fashion to take pot-shots at any or all religious beliefs, but seriously, why is making rock climbers happy more important than making aborigines happy? Why does the visiting party that is happy climbing the rock take precedence over the resident party who is happy if no one is climbing the rock regardless of the reason each holds his opinion? Do you think that, because the reason for the latter is religious that somehow the aborigine's unhappiness is less authentic? If "happiness" is the justification one side uses to excuse trespass then why is "unhappiness" an unacceptable justification to bar access?

If someone discovered a life prolonging agent would it be ok for him to control it however he wanted, a longer life isn't a necessity nor will it cure diseases but his 'ownership' would be trumped in a second as such a discovery belongs to all of humanity, just as that rock belongs to humanity because it is part of human history.

Bullshit comparison. No one is going to die because they can't climb Ayer's Rock. Seriously. Now, if there was some magical cancer-curing thing at the summit of Ayer's Rock you could argue that way, but there isn't. Climbing Uluru isn't in the same ballpark as "life-saving" anything.

As far as "belong to humanity because it is part of human history" - yes, but mostly it is part of ABORIGINE history, not global history. If it's that important a landmark no, we shouldn't be fucking with it any more than we should let every tourist visiting take home a mosaic from Pompeii.

Edit: To clarify, if the tourists caused damage or couldn't stop littering the place then there would be more of a reason to ban access.

I believe that IS part of the objection - that the damn tourists are littering, already. Among other things. Apparently they're also pissing and shitting on top of a sacred site. Rather like taking a dump in the aisle of Notre Dame de Paris from what I gather. You may not like the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that laying a log in front of the altar at Notre Dame is taking the protest a little too far, not to mention being a deliberately provocative act. Just because Ayer's Rock/Uluru doesn't look like our idea of a "church" does not make the act of pissing on the top of the rock any less objectionable or offensive.

[Starglider]

the aborigines - the original owners of Uluru

'Owners'? Why should they be the 'owners', other than happening to visit it first?

As a general rule, prior occupation is seen as a claim to ownership everywhere else in the world.

That's the thing though, they don't 'occupy' it. If people were living in huts on top of the rock they'd have a much stronger claim to privacy, but they simply have a small village a kilometre or so from one end. A tourist trap village built from modern buildings, incidentally, not anything 'authentic'. There used to be a lot more tourist infrastructure, e.g. a camping ground and hotels, but the government forced their removal after bitching from the aborigines. That is more than enough concessions IMHO - and I would not be surprised if a significant part of the motivation for those complaints was simply eliminating the competition for tourist revenue.

Did they do anything to improve the land or make it economically productive?

It's in the middle of the fucking desert! WHAT do you propose they should have done with it, given their technology?

Nothing, but that's my point, it's a natural landmark, not something any particular group of humans has a moral claim on 'owning'.

Why is putting up a tramway somehow inherently better than having the self-control not to fuck with a valuable resource?

'Valuable resource'? Why is it 'valuable', other than tourist revenue, and how is development going to reduce this value?

Bullshit. If you alter the landmarks you fuck up all the culture tied to those landmarks and that land.

How are insignificant visual alterations to a lump of rock going to 'fuck up a culture'? Does all tribal art incorporate a self-destruct device triggered to blow if someone sets off a blasting charge? Are all cultural experts going to commit suicide if they notice any change in the skyline profile? I am prepared to accept complaints about pollution of water supplies and people intruding into specific ceremonial and artistic sites (e.g. specific caves), but resistance to the mere concept of building access methods is selfish bullshit.

The landmarks and the songs/stories about them are how the aborigines navigated the landscape, and how they found the necessary resources to survive in it. Imagine tearing up every map, and destroying every GPS, compass, and navigational tool in North America or Europe or Asia - THAT is what altering the landscape does to aboriginal culture.

Except that that's a blatant lie. You have no response to the fact that it would take a massive, deliberate quarrying effort to make the rock unrecognisable.

And if all they use it for is parties and "drug trips" - so fucking what?

They have no right to complain if other people decide to use it for parties and drug trips.

There aren't other rocks on the planet for you to climb? This rock isn't special to YOU, it's special to the natives. Why can't you let them have their damn rock and go elsewhere?

Because there are small-minded supertious idiots (and I include plenty of white environmentalists in that category) all over the world. Concede to one group, and you might as well concede to them all, and then half the planet is barred to anyone not in the right little cult.

Of course, it can't be restored to what it was before. A lot of it is gone forever.

A lot of what? A few kilos of rock erroded off, at most? That's what, 0.00000001% of the rock? That's 'a lot' in your mind? You do realise that wind and rain have erroded far more than climbers over the last century?

They have no more claim to it than other Australians.

That's like saying the Germans should own France because they stole it fair and square in WWII.

No, it's like saying Germans have an equal right to visit French national parks. Which they do, because Europe is a fairly sane place these days. Incidentally French mountains are riddled with access features, including all sort of lifts, bolted climbing routes and 'via ferratas' (step, gantry and cable systems) - mostly built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries before we started giving creedence to these shrieking so-called 'preservationists'.

Taking by force doesn't make it right, it's still theft.

Except that no-one has taken anything. No one is stopping these aborigines from doing whatever they like with the place. In fact huge concession have already been made to them, in dismantling and destroying legitimate businesses that formerly provided useful services to tourists. They are trying to ban other people from engaging in even nondestructive and useful activities, due to superstition and misguided entitlement.

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.

If someone removed your left kidney you could still have a normal life

An absolutely worthless analogy, both because a kidney is proportionally about a million times larger than the site affected by a tram station, because rocks aren't alive and changing one part has no affect on the rest, and oh, the little fact that rocks are inert objects with no desire or capability to control their own structure.

Are you seriously telling me a tramway wouldn't be noticeable? Bullshit.

It would be noticeable, but not a dominating feature, and you could put it at the opposite end of the rock to the existing village. 350 degress of the panorama would remain unaffected - and vastly more people would actually be able to enjoy that panorama.

The helicopter ride to the top is FAR less altering of the rock and I doubt even that alternative would be acceptable.

Helicopters generate significant noise, which could genuinely disturb people and take away from the natural atmosphere of isolation. Cable cars are virtually silent and detract from nothing unless you actually go to that end of the rock and stare at it.

If it's a non-essential "right" how can you possibly justify forcing this on the local inhabitants?

They are in a village of modern houses a kilometer off the east end of the rock. Putting a cable car on the west end would be no imposition at all (other than perhaps more traffic on the roads built by the Australian government with other people's tax money).

Frankly, rock climbers are not the only people with a say in who has access to places, even in public parks.

Quite a few rock climbers would object to easy access to the top as well ('it destroys the challenge and lets the common people intrude!'), because it's not like that hobby has a lower prevalance of selfish assholes than native tribes or humanity in general.

Do I really want to go on a scenery enjoying hike in, say, Devil's Lake, Wisconsin only to see a cliff face strewn with ropes and gear and grunting, swearing climbers

The climbing argument is actually quite separate from the idea of providing access to everyone else. I am not sympathetic to the notion that climbing should be allowed for the sake of the sport, because frankly there are plenty of good climbing locations in central Australia and Ayers Rock is by all accounts a technically uninteresting climb. The only good reason to go up is to enjoy the scenery, and that is better provided by other means. Even still, your argument is weak, since the current number of climbers is very low, and they are almost all restricted to one route. If you walk around the base of the rock only one tiny section is likely to have people on it.

likely to drop crap on people below them or, worse yet, screw up and fall on them?

Not an issue here because the edges aren't sheer and the paths are some way from the base.

How is their enjoyment of rock climbing more valuable than my enjoyment of a hike with natural views (shorts clad buttocks not being at all natural)?

You may be able to make an argument for climbers disrupting your enjoyment at some sites, but clearly not at this one.

Historically, the aborigines have NEVER benefited at all from the tourism around Uluru.

Untrue. As I noted, they had all the other tourist infrastructure forcibly removed, businesses people spent decades building up destroyed, and now they have a near-monopoly of providing services to visitors.

And keep in mind those "immigrants" didn't just move in next door - the systematically tried to exterminate the natives in many parts of Australia and all too often succeeded.

That is true and certainly a factor in the politics (e.g. the abovementioned removal of existing tourist infrastructure) but not relevant to the underlying ethics, which in an objective analysis should be context-insensitive.

Maybe the survivors of that genocide should be given a little extra consideration in compensation.

How many of the people currently complaining personally experienced those actions or their immediate consequences?

So... when are you planning to knock down St. Peter's in Rome and build a whorehouse?

2016. And it will be a robo-brothel.

How about we reduce the Parthenon to rubble - it's just an old temple anyhow, so who the fuck cares? Oh, and those Egyptian pyramids - religious rubbish, let's grind them up for concrete to pave roads. Because religious objects couldn't possibly also have a historical value outside of their religious status, could they?

Those are constructed objects with major artistic and historical value. No one wants to destroy them any more than anyone wants to turn Ayers Rock into a quarry. However we let people walk through and climb all over those, and they both have major tourist infrastructure built all around them. Personally I would be quite happy to see a geodesic dome thrown up over both of them to protect them against further erosion. Your position is equivalent to saying that both of them should be left untouched and off limits to everyone except a few arbitrary religious cults.

[Aaron]

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.

Hey, if they want the rock left alone that's fine with me. The article however gave me the impression that they objected to folks climbing it, with the associated damage (to the rock itself and litter). Presumably a Native operated chopper (I'm thinking those small two or four seat trainers) would allow them to better monitor that.

But if they prefer people not to get up there at all, I have no objection.

[Broomstick]

'Owners'? Why should they be the 'owners', other than happening to visit it first?

As a general rule, prior occupation is seen as a claim to ownership everywhere else in the world.

That's the thing though, they don't 'occupy' it. If people were living in huts on top of the rock they'd have a much stronger claim to privacy, but they simply have a small village a kilometre or so from one end.

No one "occupies" the Eiffel Tower, either, but it would be incorrect to say that the people of Paris have no claim on it.

Perhaps I should spray-paint advertising on the sides of the Grand Canyon in view of the tourist areas? After all, no one "occupies" that area, the only village of natives is down the way. It's a shame not to develop those rocks into something economically useful. Why should the desire for natural, unaltered vistas get in the way of making a fast buck?

A tourist trap village built from modern buildings, incidentally, not anything 'authentic'.

If I recall, "authentic" pretty much means sleeping naked around a campfire under the stars - in which case you'd probably state they don't actually live there at all.

There used to be a lot more tourist infrastructure, e.g. a camping ground and hotels, but the government forced their removal after bitching from the aborigines. That is more than enough concessions IMHO - and I would not be surprised if a significant part of the motivation for those complaints was simply eliminating the competition for tourist revenue.

Except that the aborigines would apparently be happiest if the tourists all just went away entirely. It doesn't seem that money is the big motivation here.

Nothing, but that's my point, it's a natural landmark, not something any particular group of humans has a moral claim on 'owning'.

Why not?

Why can't you own a landmark of huge cultural and even historical importance?

Why is putting up a tramway somehow inherently better than having the self-control not to fuck with a valuable resource?

'Valuable resource'? Why is it 'valuable', other than tourist revenue, and how is development going to reduce this value?

Don't you value the natural world at all? Can you find no value in nature at all? Does a thing have to be altered in order for you to find it valuable?

Why is tourist revenue so fucking important?

And doesn't it occur to you that the tourists are coming to see a natural feature of the landscape, not a natural feature draped with tramways and rock climbers and little souvenir kiosks every 100 meters? The natural beauty and features of it IS what is valued. That's why changing it devalues it.

Bullshit. If you alter the landmarks you fuck up all the culture tied to those landmarks and that land.

How are insignificant visual alterations to a lump of rock going to 'fuck up a culture'?[/qut Does all tribal art incorporate a self-destruct device triggered to blow if someone sets off a blasting charge? Are all cultural experts going to commit suicide if they notice any change in the skyline profile? I am prepared to accept complaints about pollution of water supplies and people intruding into specific ceremonial and artistic sites (e.g. specific caves), but resistance to the mere concept of building access methods is selfish bullshit.

The landmarks and the songs/stories about them are how the aborigines navigated the landscape, and how they found the necessary resources to survive in it. Imagine tearing up every map, and destroying every GPS, compass, and navigational tool in North America or Europe or Asia - THAT is what altering the landscape does to aboriginal culture.

Except that that's a blatant lie. You have no response to the fact that it would take a massive, deliberate quarrying effort to make the rock unrecognisable.

Except that it's NOT about what I would find acceptable, or what YOU would find acceptable - to the aborigines NO alteration of Uluru is acceptable beyond natural forces. It's not about rendering it "unrecognizable", it's about defacing an icon.

How about I cut the left eye out of the Mona Lisa? It's only a smallalternation and you can continue to enjoy the rest of the painting unaltered. Taking that one teeny scrap of canvas would make me SO HAPPY, how can you justify selfishly keeping it in the painting?

And if all they use it for is parties and "drug trips" - so fucking what?

They have no right to complain if other people decide to use it for parties and drug trips.

Just because I might get drunk in my own backyard does not mean I have to tolerate other people getting drunk in my backyard.

There aren't other rocks on the planet for you to climb? This rock isn't special to YOU, it's special to the natives. Why can't you let them have their damn rock and go elsewhere?

Because there are small-minded supertious idiots (and I include plenty of white environmentalists in that category) all over the world. Concede to one group, and you might as well concede to them all, and then half the planet is barred to anyone not in the right little cult.

Ah, so IT IS about religion! You must punish those nasty religious people! You must destroy, deface, and deprive them of their idols for their own good (the fact that some people will profit handsomely and you will enjoy the vandalism couldn't possibly be relevant). It's not just that some people are religious - the mere fact that they are religious, even if it's halfway around the world and out of your sight - is not something you can tolerate and it makes you so unhappy that you justify smashing THEIR happiness just to spite them. How charming.

I can see I'm never inviting you over to my house....

Of course, it can't be restored to what it was before. A lot of it is gone forever.

A lot of what? A few kilos of rock erroded off, at most? That's what, 0.00000001% of the rock? That's 'a lot' in your mind? You do realise that wind and rain have erroded far more than climbers over the last century?

First point: the damage climbers do is NOT "erosion", it's human induced damage. Now, ethical climbers will strive to reduce their impact to a minimum, but the fact remains there is nothing natural about rock climbing other than, arguably, free climbing with no gear at all.

Second point: wind/rain/etc. are natural processes which the aborigines have no objection to (not that it would matter). What you don't see to get is that they object to man made changes in the rock of ANY sort, and don't want to "develop" the rock for tourism, they want people to get off the rock! Period. End of story. From their viewpoint it's NOT about the money, particularly since they can still turn a decent buck just letting people walk around the base of the place.

You just want to climb up their rock and piss and shit on it to rub it in their faces that you have contempt for their religion. That's all. You don't give a fuck about the climb, or even the natural beauty. It's a religious object therefore it must be desecrated and permanently marred to "prove" something or other.

They have no more claim to it than other Australians.

That's like saying the Germans should own France because they stole it fair and square in WWII.

No, it's like saying Germans have an equal right to visit French national parks. Which they do, because Europe is a fairly sane place these days.

Really? I find that remarkable. What, the French have no say who has access to their land? Just anyone can waltz across that border with no need of a passport or visa or any form of permission whatsoever? I find that hard to believe. When I went to France I required permission to enter the country.

Do the Germans also get an equal vote as to what parts of France are or aren't national parks or historical monuments? If the French disagree do the Germans have ultimate veto power over the native French?

Incidentally French mountains are riddled with access features, including all sort of lifts, bolted climbing routes and 'via ferratas' (step, gantry and cable systems) - mostly built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries before we started giving creedence to these shrieking so-called 'preservationists'.

So fucking what? If the French don't mind fucked-up looking mountains why should I care either? But people in Australia DO care about how Uluru looks.

I don't see why you're getting your panties in a twist over preserving ONE ROCK from alteration. Gee, maybe the US shouldn't have set aside the Sequoia National Forest because, you know, you set aside one collection of overgrown damn dirty pine trees pretty soon NO ONE will be allowed into ANY forest... oh, wait, that's not what happened.

Taking by force doesn't make it right, it's still theft.

Except that no-one has taken anything. No one is stopping these aborigines from doing whatever they like with the place.

Bullshit - that land used to be used solely by the aborigines who never consented to the white man moving in to the area. And YES, you ARE stopping the aborigines from "doing whatever they like with the place" because "whatever they would like" is setting it aside and restricting access. What you're saying is you're not stopping them from doing whatever they would like as long as you approve, which is not the same thing at all.

In fact huge concession have already been made to them, in dismantling and destroying legitimate businesses that formerly provided useful services to tourists.

Oh, like the slave labor used by large corporations during WWII were providing useful services? Like setting the southern American blacks free post Civil War was an enormous "concession" because it "dismantled" and "destroyed legitimate" agricultural businesses?

It is questionable if a business built on immorally acquired territory that is offending the local populace is "legitimate". Apparently the only thing you value is money - fine, we'll confiscate your house for the "greater good" and strip mine underneath for valuable minerals - surely you can have no objections?

They are trying to ban other people from engaging in even nondestructive and useful activities, due to superstition and misguided entitlement.

Excuse me - shitting and pissing at random along trails is NOT "nondestructive", it's quite the potential health hazard. Apparently, at least 30 people have died engaging in these "useful activities" although, frankly, I can't see anything that justifies the loss of even one human life here. Unless people are free-climbing up the rock then yes, by aborigine viewpoint there IS destruction going on here. That's leaving aside the issue of violating sacred space which, of course, I don't expect you to recognize.

As for "misguided entitlement" - the current aborigine population is but a remnant of survivors of genocide both unintentional and intentional, and within my own lifetime aborigine children were being systematically removed from their families and raised in a completely foreign culture. This was also justified as for the "greater good" and perhaps, in some ways, those children benefited but when they grew up their realized their biological parents had, more or less, been thrown on the trash heap as human garbage and that they had been cut off from their own history. If giving the survivors of several centuries of oppression and killing one very large rock in the middle of nowhere helps to mitigate the enormity of that loss I am all for it, and frankly I don't care if they want it for drunken orgies or just to piss off the white man.

Are you seriously telling me a tramway wouldn't be noticeable? Bullshit.

It would be noticeable, but not a dominating feature, and you could put it at the opposite end of the rock to the existing village. 350 degress of the panorama would remain unaffected - and vastly more people would actually be able to enjoy that panorama.

I HATE tramways up mountains, I think they're fucking ugly, on par with clear-cutting. If you're too fucking weak to get up there under your own power too fucking bad.

That's just me, of course - the problem is that for the aborigines 350 degrees unaltered isn't enough - they want it ALL. All 360 degrees. And none of it with a tramway.

The helicopter ride to the top is FAR less altering of the rock and I doubt even that alternative would be acceptable.

Helicopters generate significant noise, which could genuinely disturb people and take away from the natural atmosphere of isolation. Cable cars are virtually silent and detract from nothing unless you actually go to that end of the rock and stare at it.

Yes, I am aware of how noisy helicopters are, having been in several. Personally, as choppers are transitory, I find the brief burst of noise, which diminishes rapidly with distance, to be less objectionable that a permanently built alteration to the rockface. Sound goes away in seconds or minutes. Tramways do not.

If it's a non-essential "right" how can you possibly justify forcing this on the local inhabitants?

They are in a village of modern houses a kilometer off the east end of the rock. Putting a cable car on the west end would be no imposition at all (other than perhaps more traffic on the roads built by the Australian government with other people's tax money).

WHICH THEY NEVER WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! This is not about stealing tourist revenue, they don't want the tourists, period. The aborigines are apparently willing to tolerate people visiting the base of the rock and viewing it from there, but NOT being ON the rock. At all. Putting the tramway out of site of the village is NOT going to appease them, it will not make it all right. Let me cut the left eye out of the Mona Lisa, you can still enjoy the rest of the painting....

The aborigines did not ask for the roads or the tourists. Somebody else build them and are now unhappy the natives aren't "properly" grateful. How... colonial in attitude.

Do I really want to go on a scenery enjoying hike in, say, Devil's Lake, Wisconsin only to see a cliff face strewn with ropes and gear and grunting, swearing climbers

The climbing argument is actually quite separate from the idea of providing access to everyone else.

Why SHOULD everyone else have access? It would make the tourists happy? Again, why is the happiness of transient tourists valued over the happiness of residents who would be made very UNhappy by this?

Even still, your argument is weak, since the current number of climbers is very low, and they are almost all restricted to one route. If you walk around the base of the rock only one tiny section is likely to have people on it.

I believe the objection is not to the size of that section but that it exists at all.

likely to drop crap on people below them or, worse yet, screw up and fall on them?

Not an issue here because the edges aren't sheer and the paths are some way from the base.

Then how are people managing to die? Is it that hot and hazardous? Well, then, maybe for the greater good we SHOULD ban climbing such a hazard as there is much unhappiness in having to collect corpses and rescue the injured.

How is their enjoyment of rock climbing more valuable than my enjoyment of a hike with natural views (shorts clad buttocks not being at all natural)?

You may be able to make an argument for climbers disrupting your enjoyment at some sites, but clearly not at this one.

It makes me (and the aborigines) unhappy to have ANY section of Uluru afflicted with climbers. I'm working on a photoshoot of the ENTIRE rock to show it's natural beauty and those climbers aren't natural!

Historically, the aborigines have NEVER benefited at all from the tourism around Uluru.

Untrue. As I noted, they had all the other tourist infrastructure forcibly removed, businesses people spent decades building up destroyed, and now they have a near-monopoly of providing services to visitors.

Oh, poor babies - they built on stolen land and profited off exploiting someone else's sacred site, then got all pissy when they had to give it back. Too fucking bad.

Here in the US people have been forced off their land in order to make national parks - homes and businesses destroyed, etc, returned to nature, etc. But at least those folks get some forms of compensation. If white folks in Australia don't' they should take it up with their government, not blame the aborigines

That is true and certainly a factor in the politics (e.g. the abovementioned removal of existing tourist infrastructure) but not relevant to the underlying ethics, which in an objective analysis should be context-insensitive.

Oh, here we go retreating into big words. Bullshit - why SHOULDN'T "context" be considered? Isn't "context" what defines a historical monument?

Maybe the survivors of that genocide should be given a little extra consideration in compensation.

How many of the people currently complaining personally experienced those actions or their immediate consequences?

Given that the "Stolen Generation" of children forcibly kidnapped from remnant tribes extended into the 1970's a whole fucking lot of them, either as parents or as the children taken.

How about we reduce the Parthenon to rubble - it's just an old temple anyhow, so who the fuck cares? Oh, and those Egyptian pyramids - religious rubbish, let's grind them up for concrete to pave roads. Because religious objects couldn't possibly also have a historical value outside of their religious status, could they?

Those are constructed objects with major artistic and historical value. No one wants to destroy them any more than anyone wants to turn Ayers Rock into a quarry.

Any Uluru was preserved through uncounted generations of aborigines who carefully observed customs that limited access and thus human impact on the rock. Do you think that any less of cultural achievement? Do you not admire self-restraint?

However we let people walk through and climb all over those,

We do not, however, allow people to climb up and down the walls and piss and shit of the roof of those buildings, do we? But hey, Uluru is only an aborigine thing, it's OK to piss and shit on it all you want! [/sarcasm]

and they both have major tourist infrastructure built all around them.

Which the locals do not object to - but at Uluru the locals DO object.

I should also point out that at Notre Dame Cathedreal in Paris there ARE restrictions on what tourists can and can't do, and they do NOT have unfettered access to the place. Likewise, tourists can climb the Eiffel Tower (I did) but only to a certain point - you are not allowed to clabber up the exterior of the structure merely because it would make you happy or some such nonsense, whether or not you are actually doing damage or not, and you certainly would not be permitted to piss or shit on the roof of it.

Personally I would be quite happy to see a geodesic dome thrown up over both of them to protect them against further erosion. Your position is equivalent to saying that both of them should be left untouched and off limits to everyone except a few arbitrary religious cults.

Nope, I think the local residents with historical claim should be the ones to determine what goes on. The Greeks apparently are quite happy with having the Partheon as a tourist site. The Egyptians likewise don't mind showing off their pyramids, but I can't imagine they'd install a tram to allow people to admire the view from the top.

[thejester]

That's the thing though, they don't 'occupy' it. If people were living in huts on top of the rock they'd have a much stronger claim to privacy, but they simply have a small village a kilometre or so from one end. A tourist trap village built from modern buildings, incidentally, not anything 'authentic'.

You do realise that indigenous people were nomadic and didn't create permanent structures, right?

[Mr Flibble]

Starglider, you have suggested building a Tramway on Uluru, in this thread five Australians I am aware of (myself, Lusankya, JSF, Hongi and thejester) have posted in this thread, and four of us posting considering construction on Uluru to be unwanted. It would never be accepted by the general population of Australia, let alone the aboriginal title holders. The whole attraction of Uluru is that is is a massive rock in the middle of nowhere. Any form of construction would take away from the whole "middle of nowhere" feel of the rock, and destroy the natural beauty, and the natural beauty is what people go there to see.

If you want to see the rock, that is fine and isn't being restricted, you can see it from the ground. You can also see it from above, as helicopter flights for tourists above Uluru are already available and quite popular (for obvious reasons). Whilst I'm sure the view from the top is quite spectacular. It is doubtless not as impressive as a view from above it in a helicopter (as far as I'm aware they don't land on top of it).

There are serious concenrs besides evironmental damage caused by climbing. If something should go wrong Uluru is very isolated, and the costs of getting treatment and rescue to the area are quite expensive. As a result of the tourists in the area there is a medical centre at Ayers Rock, acording to this study:

OBJECTIVES: To determine the emergency practice profile of the Ayers Rock population and the health risk of tourist activities. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective survey of all patients presenting to the medical staff at Ayers Rock Medical Centre between 1 July 1991 and 31 December 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A serious incident was defined as an incident that was life threatening or required more than 1.5 hours of emergency medical attention. RESULTS: There were 255 serious incidents, 40 of which were immediately life threatening and six of which resulted in death. Most serious incidents were not associated with climbing Uluru, but nine of 13 myocardial infarcts occurred on the Rock, all involving tourists (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Living in or visiting the Ayers Rock area is associated with an increased health risk and the Uluru climb is associated with a high incidence of myocardial infarction. The emergency practice workload is higher than at other comparable rural facilities.

That is in about 1.5 years (of this study) there were 255 serious incidents at Ayers rock, most of those related to climbing, everyone of them ivolved tourists. I sincerely doubt the medical centre at Uluru is equiped to deal with the most serious cases, and I suspect that many of those are flown to hospitals in Alice Springs, Darwin or Adelaide depending on the severity. The medical centre would be quite expensive to run, as very few doctors would be willing to work in such a remote location (we have a rural doctor shortage in Australia), let alone all the support staff, and energy requirements of such a centre. At 255 serious incidents in tat timeframe, you are looking at a serious incident every 2 days. It could well be that disallowing climbing will save money due to the reduced number of accidents, despite the smaller loss of tourism. It should be noted that the Northern Territory has a lot of trouble getting doctors to work in the state at all, as it hasn't got the funding to pay enough to attract them away from Sydney or Melbourne, it is hard enough getting doctors to stay in Adelaide, and that is a city of 1 million people.

In my opinion people who want to rock climb, can do so at the many other suitable locations in Australia which are much closer to high quality emergency, and subsequently less costly to the Australian community should an accident occur.

On top of these objections, under Australian native title law the aboriginal owers of the land are within they rights to restrict climbing on the rock, whether you think they should be or not, and as they (or many of them anyway) LIVE in the area, it is their right to restrict who comes onto their land. Australia does not have a tradition of free access to land. For example an area around Woomera in South Australia, the size of BRITAIN, is prohibited to be accessed without a permit (as it is used for military weapons testing). Also the APY lands in northern South Australia (part owned by the same tribe as Uluru) is prohibited to be visited without a permit, issued by the aboriginal people of the area. Australia is a large country and there is plety of land to go around, so we are quite comfortable with allowing landowners to restrict access to their land, the rest of the population will still have more rock faces than they need available for climbing.

*edited for source

[Starglider]

Starglider, you have suggested building a Tramway on Uluru

No, I did not, if you'd actually READ THE FUCKING THREAD you would notice that Oberst Tharnow proposed building a gondola lift, and I pointed out that an aerial tramway (cable car with fixed load cables) would be more appropriate because it requires fewer supports and less construction. I also said, repeatedly, that it still has zero chance of actually being built.

Any form of construction would take away from the whole "middle of nowhere" feel of the rock, and destroy the natural beauty, and the natural beauty is what people go there to see.

Which is why I suggested a tunnel, which would be completely invisible, but still impossible to get approval for even if you had the funding.

[Mr Flibble]

Starglider, you have suggested building a Tramway on Uluru

No, I did not, if you'd actually READ THE FUCKING THREAD you would notice that Oberst Tharnow proposed building a gondola lift, and I pointed out that an aerial tramway (cable car with fixed load cables) would be more appropriate because it requires fewer supports and less construction. I also said, repeatedly, that it still has zero chance of actually being built.

Emphasis mine, how is pointing out that an aerial tramway is more appropriate not suggesting a tramway? READ YOUR OWN REPLY. Conceding it won't actually be built, does not change the fact that you suggested it.

Any form of construction would take away from the whole "middle of nowhere" feel of the rock, and destroy the natural beauty, and the natural beauty is what people go there to see.

Which is why I suggested a tunnel, which would be completely invisible, but still impossible to get approval for even if you had the funding.

And a tunnel still destroys the natural beauty of the site, it would be visible from somewhere, notably, where ever the entrances are, which is why as you say it would never get approval or funding. I personally would prefer if it didn't even have the current chain on it for assisting climbers. Uluru's appeal is that it is a great big rock in the middle of nowhere. It is irrelevant anyway to the issues I discussed about the costs that climbers place on the community with many serious injuries occuring, which effictively takes away precious (and very rare) medical resources from the indigenous population that lives in the area and the possibility that this might be a legitimate reason alone to restrict climbing on Uluru as the best feasible way to reduce the number of these incidents is to restrict climbing, as building infrastructure such as an aerial tramway, a gondola, or cutting great big fucking chunks out of the rock is not only offensive to the owners, but most other Australians.

As I also said the under Australian law, and within our culture (both aboriginal and post european settlement) it is accpeted that the owner of property has the right to restrict access to it to the public. As we have such a large area of land, to a relatively small population, that we can seal off areas the size of entire european nations for military exercises, and there are still plety of locatios on public land where people can engage in their desired recreational activities such as rock climbing. The aboriginal owners of the APY lands (who I mentioned are the SAME people as in Uluru) have been granted effective autonomy in South Australia. Effectively they have their own state which they have sovereignty over (though it is limited sovereigty, but even government workers are required to get permits to entire APY lands in South Australia), this was granted as South Australia recognised that they were the legitimate owners of that area of land. Whilst the same level of autonomy is not granted in the Northern Territory, the transfer of title, was basically an admission, that their sovereign rights to the lands had been forcibly removed. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate who enters their land, and what they do on it? Every sovereign nation on Earth does so, and whilst the traditional owners of Uluru have not been granted full sovereigty over their lands, they have been granted partial control in the form of native title laws, which specifically give them the right to choose what is done on their land because they were the original sovereign owners of those lands.

[thejester]

Who goes to Uluru to see the views off the top, anyway? You go to see Uluru. If you want to see views of a desert, go on one of the helicopter flights that are easily accessible.

[Ford Prefect]

While I have not been following the thread, I must say I find it ironic that an American and a European are arguing over a rock in the middle of Australia. That said, I didn't even know it was possible to climb Uluru. I've always thought it was prohibited to do so, even when I was young and it was still called Ayers Rock by default.

[zircon]

Sometimes the right to control your own property has to be invaded for the benefit of all, if we didn't we'd live in a sad and culturally poor world.

Yes, but such things should not be done lightly. Usurpation of property rights should only be done if it is TRULY for the common good. While yanking the rug out from under the aborigines might be good for the climbers, it would NOT be good for the aborigines. You know, the people who live there as opposed to visitors. Why should the enjoyment of tourists take precedence over the interests/happiness/opinions of the natives? What makes the happiness of a rock climber more important than the happiness of an aborigine? Especially when the overwhelming number of visitors to Uluru apparently would not stop visiting if they were no longer allowed to climb it?

The right for the public to experience the view is just as important as their religious beliefs, and the ownership that you claim trumps all.

Why?

I realize that this board is full of atheists and there's a fashion to take pot-shots at any or all religious beliefs, but seriously, why is making rock climbers happy more important than making aborigines happy? Why does the visiting party that is happy climbing the rock take precedence over the resident party who is happy if no one is climbing the rock regardless of the reason each holds his opinion? Do you think that, because the reason for the latter is religious that somehow the aborigine's unhappiness is less authentic? If "happiness" is the justification one side uses to excuse trespass then why is "unhappiness" an unacceptable justification to bar access?

Those that climb the mountain bring back memories and an experience they share with others, it's the 'yes!' feeling of standing on the top of something big. Climbers become happy because they climbed it.

The aborigines are not happy because no one is climbing it, they become unhappy because someone climbs it, they don't sit around their village and go "Remember that time no one climbed Uluru?".
I don't question the sincerity of their unhappiness but the reason for their unhappiness is quite simply stupid, it's just another version of, i'm offended because... someone held hands, someone walked through my 12 acre forest which is mine mine Mine!, you dared speak your opinion in my presence, you dressed in a way i find objectionable, etc.

The belief that the presence of other human beings outside your immediate private space is something objectionable is not something i recognize.

Of course, all of this is dependent on that the people who climb it also leave it the same way they found it.

If someone discovered a life prolonging agent would it be ok for him to control it however he wanted, a longer life isn't a necessity nor will it cure diseases but his 'ownership' would be trumped in a second as such a discovery belongs to all of humanity, just as that rock belongs to humanity because it is part of human history.

Bullshit comparison. No one is going to die because they can't climb Ayer's Rock. Seriously. Now, if there was some magical cancer-curing thing at the summit of Ayer's Rock you could argue that way, but there isn't. Climbing Uluru isn't in the same ballpark as "life-saving" anything.

I didn't mean that they'd live forever, imagine a 20 year extension, people are going to die no matter if they get it or not. It's a privilege, i wasn't trying to address the rock but rather the idea that ownership trumps all.

Edit: To clarify, if the tourists caused damage or couldn't stop littering the place then there would be more of a reason to ban access.

I believe that IS part of the objection - that the damn tourists are littering, already. Among other things. Apparently they're also pissing and shitting on top of a sacred site. Rather like taking a dump in the aisle of Notre Dame de Paris from what I gather. You may not like the Catholic church but I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that laying a log in front of the altar at Notre Dame is taking the protest a little too far, not to mention being a deliberately provocative act. Just because Ayer's Rock/Uluru doesn't look like our idea of a "church" does not make the act of pissing on the top of the rock any less objectionable or offensive.

I can't argue against this, if people can't climb it and leave it in the same state they found it then it should be closed down or at least implement some kind of system that discouraged littering, that rule is part of the 'allemansrätt' as well, enjoy the sight don't ruin it.

[Simon_Jester]

The aborigines are not happy because no one is climbing it, they become unhappy because someone climbs it, they don't sit around their village and go "Remember that time no one climbed Uluru?".

Actually, they probably do, but I imagine it gets rolled into "remember that time when all those pale jerkasses didn't come here and shoot at us and take a dump on the Holy Monolith and take away our children to boarding schools where they would forcibly taught to despise our lifestyle?"

I don't question the sincerity of their unhappiness but the reason for their unhappiness is quite simply stupid, it's just another version of, i'm offended because... someone held hands, someone walked through my 12 acre forest which is mine mine Mine!, you dared speak your opinion in my presence, you dressed in a way i find objectionable, etc.

The belief that the presence of other human beings outside your immediate private space is something objectionable is not something i recognize.

The catch is that there are two separate issues here. One is "Do I have a right to control your behavior?" and the other is "Do I have a right to control a space?" And intelligent people can disagree about that second question. In Australia and America, the tradition favors people being able to control a space if that space is explicitly theirs, even if that limits your behavior while in the space.
________

Sidenote:
Ironically, in both Australia and America, the natives were probably a lot less interested in the idea of controlling land before white people showed up and started shooting and pushing people out to make room for farms and stuff. At which point they learned that the only hope they had of maintaining any power to control their own culture without having it worn out from under them was to assert control over specific patches of land, in a way they never had to before.

When everyone pretty much agrees on how to do things, property rights aren't as important, because the things I'll do on your property aren't so different from what you'd do. It's only when we have different opinions on what a piece of land is for that property rights start to matter. If I think I should graze cattle on this land while you think you should grow wheat, one of us has to be kept out for the other or things will get ugly.

[Stark]

I don't think white guilt is a good basis for policy. There are plenty of reasons to leave the stupid rock alone without having to resort to 'aww colonisation was bad '.

The idea of another massively corrupt 'tribal council' gaining control of Uluru to make money which they never use to help the communities they apparently represent is hilarious, though. If it happens enough people might actually start giving a shit. Regional Australia (at least in Qrappy Queensland) is often nearly third-world, but nobody cares. What's that massive teenage male suicide rate?

[zircon]

The aborigines are not happy because no one is climbing it, they become unhappy because someone climbs it, they don't sit around their village and go "Remember that time no one climbed Uluru?".

Actually, they probably do, but I imagine it gets rolled into "remember that time when all those pale jerkasses didn't come here and shoot at us and take a dump on the Holy Monolith and take away our children to boarding schools where they would forcibly taught to despise our lifestyle?"

You misunderstand what i was trying to say, the opposite to unhappiness in this case isn't happiness, it's a return to how it used to be and a neutral emotional state.
If no one had ever climbed Uluru, the empty rock doesn't constantly fill the aborigines with a stream of happiness.

If people were banned from the rock then yes, it might cause a momentary spurt of happiness but that is simply because they were unhappy with the situation to begin with.

[Frank Hipper]

'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.

Aside from whatever it is that "improvement" is supposed to mean (removal, a nice coat of paint, installation of strip malls, perhaps a McDonald's?), this red herring of "economically productive" and distaste at Aboriginal activites is completely irrelevant to ownership.
If Parks Australia is making policy, and they have the legal authority to do so, then the issue of ownership is settled. The OP cites 98% of Australians supporting this, on top of that.


As to cost/benefit, we're talking about fucking recreation, recreation out in the middle of nowhere. You want useful cost/benefit rock climbing, build something affordable in the cities with safety in mind, where people don't have to make unusual outlays of money just to get there.

[Serafina]

Really? I find that remarkable. What, the French have no say who has access to their land? Just anyone can waltz across that border with no need of a passport or visa or any form of permission whatsoever? I find that hard to believe. When I went to France I required permission to enter the country.

I'm sorry, Broomstick, but despite being sarcastic, you are actually right - i can go to France any time i want.
Due to the Schengen treaty, members of most european countries can freely cross the borders of most european countries without any border controlls at all. They can even freely live in those countries, without any permission at all.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think white guilt is a good basis for policy. There are plenty of reasons to leave the stupid rock alone without having to resort to 'aww colonisation was bad '.

Seconded. My point is that if we do agree that the Australian Aborigines have the right to control access to the rock, then we shouldn't be surprised or offended if they turn out to be as greedy as we are. Give people anywhere a resource and they'll try to figure out a way to profit from it.

And yet so many whites are surprised and offended. I think it's stupid- people like that expect that "the natives control this land" means "the natives will go back to the Neolithic so we can take pretty pictures of their quaint little campsites."

You misunderstand what i was trying to say, the opposite to unhappiness in this case isn't happiness, it's a return to how it used to be and a neutral emotional state.
If no one had ever climbed Uluru, the empty rock doesn't constantly fill the aborigines with a stream of happiness.

If people were banned from the rock then yes, it might cause a momentary spurt of happiness but that is simply because they were unhappy with the situation to begin with.

If negating unhappiness isn't functionally equivalent to creating happiness, utilitarianism goes crazy. If so, then we can't longer use "how much happiness results from this action?" as a reliable guide for what to do, and the question of whether the world is a happier place when Ayers' Rock is climbed or unclimbed becomes irrelevant.

[Broomstick]

Really? I find that remarkable. What, the French have no say who has access to their land? Just anyone can waltz across that border with no need of a passport or visa or any form of permission whatsoever? I find that hard to believe. When I went to France I required permission to enter the country.

I'm sorry, Broomstick, but despite being sarcastic, you are actually right - i can go to France any time i want.
Due to the Schengen treaty, members of most european countries can freely cross the borders of most european countries without any border controlls at all. They can even freely live in those countries, without any permission at all.

OK, that did get signed after I went there.

Nonetheless, there are STILL controls on who can and can't enter France. While Europeans can freely enter and live there NON-Europeans cannot. Thus, the French still do control their lands.

[Darth Wong]

'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.

Aside from whatever it is that "improvement" is supposed to mean (removal, a nice coat of paint, installation of strip malls, perhaps a McDonald's?), this red herring of "economically productive" and distaste at Aboriginal activites is completely irrelevant to ownership.
If Parks Australia is making policy, and they have the legal authority to do so, then the issue of ownership is settled. The OP cites 98% of Australians supporting this, on top of that.

As to cost/benefit, we're talking about fucking recreation, recreation out in the middle of nowhere. You want useful cost/benefit rock climbing, build something affordable in the cities with safety in mind, where people don't have to make unusual outlays of money just to get there.

Are we arguing about whether Australia gave them the right to deny use of this land, or whether they should have given them the right to deny use of this land? It seems to me that most of this argument revolves around the latter question, not the former.

[zircon]

You misunderstand what i was trying to say, the opposite to unhappiness in this case isn't happiness, it's a return to how it used to be and a neutral emotional state.
If no one had ever climbed Uluru, the empty rock doesn't constantly fill the aborigines with a stream of happiness.

If people were banned from the rock then yes, it might cause a momentary spurt of happiness but that is simply because they were unhappy with the situation to begin with.

If negating unhappiness isn't functionally equivalent to creating happiness, utilitarianism goes crazy. If so, then we can't longer use "how much happiness results from this action?" as a reliable guide for what to do, and the question of whether the world is a happier place when Ayers' Rock is climbed or unclimbed becomes irrelevant.

I don't understand what you're trying to debate here, as said, if they stop climbing the mountain then they will feel happy, for some time.
The happiness that is given from an action doesn't continue to give forever, having an untouched mountain isn't going to give +5 happiness per second.

If no one ever climbed the mountain it would integrate itself into their society to the point where the mountain neither gives or removes happiness.

[zircon]

Addition: You could argue that a return to the neutral state is an overall increase of happiness for the aborigines, but that simply brings us back to the point that the reason for the unhappiness is stupid, if the problem is that the tourists litter the area then they should complain for the actual physical reason which is littering rather then claiming that the presence of other human beings on the mountain is reprehensible.