In reply to Denning76:
> It's a shame for people who lose out as a result, but with that said, preservation of such archaeological deposits are important. Clearly the issues extend beyond this in Australia, but I'm not convinced this exact case is the fight to pick.
> Yeah it's a great crag, but some things are more important.
There's more than one kind of cultural significance at risk here and I think it's ridiculously simplistic to assert that one trumps the other solely on the basis of age.
I've climbed at Taipan and would support the notion that it's one of the best crags in the world, certainly the best I climbed on in Oz by a big margin.
Climbing is a valid culture with a large international constituency. I'd argue that climbing sites of this stature deserve world heritage status and the attendant protections even.
From what I've read Taipan 'may' have some aboriginal quarry sites. Weighed against the huge significance to the world climbing culture, without diminishing the cultural import of the quarry sites, does their existence in any way justify an outright ban?