Uluru climbing ban under consideration, traditional owners expected to make announcement today - Sensationalist Headlines

Edit: [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1584135&p=52843291&viewfull=1#post52843291]The ban has been confirmed to start from 2019[/url] [t]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9106466-3x2-940x627.jpg[/t] [quote=ABC News]The traditional owners of Uluru are today expected to make an announcement on whether or not they will close it to climbing permanently, as interest from visitors wanting to ascend the rock wanes. The management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park says the board of management will work to close the rock permanently to climbers once the proportion of visitors doing so falls below 20 per cent. A meeting was called for this morning, and chairman of the management board Sammy Wilson was expected to speak to media afterward. In 2010, when the board announced its intention to close the climb, the proportion of visitors to the site who chose to make the ascent was 38 per cent, and in the 1990s it was 74 per cent. Traditional owners have in the past asked people not to climb Uluru, previously known as Ayers Rock, and a message at the bottom of the sacred site reiterates the message.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-01/uluru-climbing-ban-under-consideration-by-traditional-owners/9106502[/url]

snip misread

Got nothing to do with people not wanting to climb it when there's signs everywhere telling you they don't want you climbing it, anytime I've heard the place come up in conversation its always mentioned that the aborigines don't want people climbing it so anyone who knows that generally won't. Its such a cool place though, would be a shame to close it but it IS important to them.

The arguments against the climb are pretty shit though. It all boils down to "it's sacred" what makes it sacred? aboriginal ceremonies in the past using it? Should we stop people climbing any mountain that is deemed sacred by aborigines? (which is a lot, since they had tribes everywhere). I really don't see the point. There's tonnes of sacred sites that would never enforce a strict rule like this.

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52842649]The arguments against the climb are pretty shit though. It all boils down to "it's sacred" what makes it sacred? aboriginal ceremonies in the past using it? Should we stop people climbing any mountain that is deemed sacred by aborigines? (which is a lot, since they had tribes everywhere). I really don't see the point. There's tonnes of sacred sites that would never enforce a strict rule like this.[/QUOTE] It's not public property. The land title for Uluru is owned by the Anangu people, and part of having ownership over something is also having control over what you do with it. And yes, while Uluru is jointly administered by those people and the federal government, both parties had agreed many years ago that Uluru should be closed for climbs, contingent on one of three conditions being met. This article is about one of those conditions having finally been met. Why does it have to be hard to show respect to the traditional owners? It's a very reasonable demand that they have made. It's not going to significantly change anyone's life, just because they weren't allowed to climb Uluru. Also, there have been a number of incidents over the years of people leaving rubbish, spraying graffiti or even urinating and defecating on Uluru, a place that is not only sacred to the traditional owners (you wouldn't see people do the same in the Vatican), but is also a place recognised as a UNESCO heritage site. The dangerous climb has also claimed several lives over the years. Also, really not trying to be a sjw here, but 'Aborigines' and 'tribes' are inappropriate or insensitive terms to use. I'd suggest using Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities instead.

[QUOTE=BF;52842721]It's not public property. The land title for Uluru is owned by the Anangu people, and part of having ownership over something is also having control over what you do with it. And yes, while Uluru is jointly administered by those people and the federal government, both parties had agreed many years ago that Uluru should be closed for climbs, contingent on one of three conditions being met. This article is about one of those conditions having finally been met. Why does it have to be hard to show respect to the traditional owners? It's a very reasonable demand that they have made. It's not going to significantly change anyone's life, just because they weren't allowed to climb Uluru. Also, there have been a number of incidents over the years of people leaving rubbish, spraying graffiti or even urinating and defecating on Uluru, a place that is not only sacred to the traditional owners (you wouldn't see people do the same in the Vatican), but is also a place recognised as a UNESCO heritage site. The dangerous climb has also claimed several lives over the years. Also, really not trying to be a sjw here, but 'Aborigines' and 'tribes' are inappropriate or insensitive terms to use. I'd suggest using Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities instead.[/QUOTE] I hardly see rubbish and graffiti as solid reasoning, because that should just carry an especially hefty fine in a protected area. The dangers of climbing should be addressed? I just flat out don't see why you cant climb it when any other sacred site that's located in a mountain is absolutely okay. They carry the same risks and disturbances, rubbish, graffiti etc. The law should just come down hard on those people, because that is actually disrespectful.

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52842770]I hardly see rubbish and graffiti as solid reasoning, because that should just carry an especially hefty fine in a protected area. The dangers of climbing should be addressed? I just flat out don't see why you cant climb it when any other sacred site that's located in a mountain is absolutely okay. They carry the same risks and disturbances, rubbish, graffiti etc. The law should just come down hard on those people, because that is actually disrespectful.[/QUOTE] To address the climbing danger would be to deface the site even more, and to address the defacing would either need someone up there 24/7 or to close off climbing altogether.

when I went to uluru as part of a school camp some kid threw a melon at uluru, full force from a metre away

[QUOTE=Araknid;52842853]when I went to uluru as part of a school camp some kid threw a melon at uluru, full force from a metre away[/QUOTE] that's fucked up

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;52842982]that's fucked up[/QUOTE] it's kind of comedic though too

Charge people to climb it.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52843022]Charge people to climb it.[/QUOTE] You're completely missing the point

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52842770]I hardly see rubbish and graffiti as solid reasoning, because that should just carry an especially hefty fine in a protected area. The dangers of climbing should be addressed? I just flat out don't see why you cant climb it when any other sacred site that's located in a mountain is absolutely okay. They carry the same risks and disturbances, rubbish, graffiti etc. The law should just come down hard on those people, because that is actually disrespectful.[/QUOTE] Stop talking shit, if you're going to go on about other sacred sites that are located in mountains that are okay to climb, name them instead of just hypothetically referring to them. Because so far you've basically just said 'there's a lot' I guarantee you that Uluru is not the only sacred site that tribes aren't okay with you touching. In fact, unauthorised access to a sacred site can carry some hefty fines. Uluru is a bit different because its a tourist destination. Also like...its theirs, not yours. Its not for you to tell them what's disrespectful about it and whats not - its for them to tell you. If you don't listen to them about it, it sort of just makes you a bit of an ass

Oh yeah, the ban has been confirmed, starting from 2019 [quote=ABC News]Climbing Uluru is set to be a thing of the past after the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park board decided unanimously to ban the activity, starting in 2019. The board, made up of eight traditional owners and three representatives from National Parks, made the decision after consulting with the wider Anangu community, who it said was overwhelmingly in support of banning climbs. Senior traditional owner and chairman of the park board Sammy Wilson was at Uluru for the announcement and in a written speech said the site had deep cultural significance and was not a "theme park". "Some people in tourism and government for example might have been saying we need to keep it open but it's not their law that lies in this land," he said. "It is an extremely important place, not a playground or theme park like Disneyland. "The Government needs to respect what we are saying about our culture in the same way it expects us to abide by its laws. "After much discussion, we've decided it's time." The ban will begin on October 26, 2019 to coincide with the 34th anniversary of the return of Uluru to traditional owners.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-01/uluru-climbs-banned-after-unanimous-board-decision/9103512[/url]

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52842770]I hardly see rubbish and graffiti as solid reasoning, because that should just carry an especially hefty fine in a protected area. The dangers of climbing should be addressed? I just flat out don't see why you cant climb it when any other sacred site that's located in a mountain is absolutely okay. They carry the same risks and disturbances, rubbish, graffiti etc. The law should just come down hard on those people, because that is actually disrespectful.[/QUOTE] It's their damn property, if they don't want you climbing it that's their business.

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52842649]Should we stop people climbing any mountain that is deemed sacred by aborigines? (which is a lot, since they had tribes everywhere).[/QUOTE] Why the fuck not? It's not like there's a shortage of shit to climb.