UKC

I read in today's paper that the Uluru-Kata Juta national park board have finally decided to forbid climbing the rock formerly known as Ayres Rock. For some years visitors have been requested to not set foot on the culturally important rock which stands on land owned by the Anangu (the indigenous population of Central Australia). The patience of these people, who have a majority on the management board of the N P, is to be commended. While they could have enforced the ban on a majority vote they have gone for persuasion and a unanimous decision.
I think today will be celebrated by many people around the world.
Incidentally, 36 fatalities have been reported amongst people climbing the chain-protected walk and between 2002 and 2009 there were 74 rescues involving injuries.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Uluru for a few thousand years, Ayres rock since invasion day.

In reply to Rog Wilko and Dan:

I think it's actually Ayers Rock - unless you mean the one on Orkney!

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I went up Ayers rock in 1987. Apparently the most common cause of death was heart attacks during or immediately after the 'climb'. Most other deaths were people chasing lens caps or hats that had got blown away and subsequently falling down the steep sides.
I thought the Olgas were much more interesting and varied than the Rock.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I decided not to "climb" it in 2000. Enjoyed a stunning and tranquil walk around the base with amazing waterfalls and pools. As said above, Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) even more interesting. I found that to be a magical place, quite a surreal landscape, loads of wildlife and not a tourist in sight. Saw a dingo on the way back to camp too.

In reply to Snoweider:


It has been 'climbed' on btw - see e.g. http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Was about to say that I had memories of an account in Mountain or some other magazine, but I see that's in the piece you linked to. As so often in Mountain, there was at least one great photo (was it on the cover ? can't remember)

In reply to Rog Wilko:



Those are staggering statistics - I wonder how that compares with the handrail climb up Half Dome? Or are the two not comparable?

In reply to Trangia:

They're not really comparable: the Half Dome cableway is a path enclosed on both sides by cables, and you would have to make a serious effort to fall off it; the path up Uluru is a single hanging chain suspended by posts and, at least one point, there is a gap in the chainway of about twenty feet (?) or so. (I don't know why there's such a gap; maybe it's designed in as a 'wally stopper?)

But I have no details regarding the actual circumstances of the deaths or rescues; on that, Wanderer100's comments above seem pertinent.

Back to the original subject matter: I have mixed feelings about it. I don't want to trample on anybody's beliefs but, on the other hand, I would like to regard natural places like this - along with mountain country in general - as belonging to everybody.

In reply to Trangia:

I think the walk in to Half Dome would filter outmost of the potential victims

In reply to dan gibson:


Take your point.

In reply to Ian Parsons:


Yes, I looked at that for a while thinking there was something wrong.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Great! Enjoyed that typical bit of Noddy's writing about a typical Noddy adventure.
Btw, he was in UK last summer and we found a dry enough afternoon to do Little Cham together which he greatly enjoyed.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I understand and share, up to a point, your feelings. But when you consider the number of visitors and the disrespectful way they sometimes interact with the rock (pissing on the summit, for example) I think the balance leans towards the ban.
Are not some Himalayan summits off limits for similar reasons?

In reply to Rog Wilko:


I am not a fan of crowds, nor am I trying to defending boorish behaviour, like pissing on the summit. I am also aware that the native inhabitants of Australia have a history stretching back some 40,000 years or so.

And yet - Uluru will outlast them all, as indeed it will outlast all of us: belief systems are - in the context of geological time - here-today-and-gone-tomorrow affairs .


Yes. Kanchenjunga's the obvious example I can think of.

In reply to kevin stephens:


That made me laugh!

In reply to Rog Wilko:


AFAIK all summits there are sacret. But Sherpa’s have taken a more pragmatic approach. Also amount of climbers is a bit different.

I think Hindu’s also have sacret sactuaries, like Nanda Devi region.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Some sacred summits here

http://climbreport.net/4-forbidden-mountains-in-the-himalayas/

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Hmm; sorry about that. I was pitching it somewhere between "smart arse" and "pedant" - and, I think you'll agree, pretty much nailed it!

The piece in Mountain had the shot looking up inside the chimney as the title photo, a shot similar to the one in the upper groove, plus two other climbing photos. An "approach" shot gives a good view of the rather unique stal-like feature - the Kangaroo's Tail - that forms the chimney. The cover shot was actually of ice climbing in Lee Vining Canyon, from Chouinard.

In reply to Ian Parsons:


No need to apologise. I'm a fully signed up member of Pedants Society and don't get hissy when corrected. Generally.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Following the Ayres rock logic.. The various druid folk should have more say over Stone Henge than the likes of English heritage.

In reply to summo:


No, it's a qualitatively different case: the Aboriginal people own Uluru (via the Central Land Council).

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Why do they own it? There ancestors were there first? So a UK druid site, any people of Celtic or pict ancestry would have first dibs on stone henge compared to anyone of Anglo Saxon, Viking, Roman, French origin ?

It should belong to the nation, for all people to have equal access and say.

In reply to summo:

They legally own it. See e.g. https://www.clc.org.au/index.php?/land-won-back/info/uluru-kata-tjuta-land-...

In reply to summo:


How very socialist of you.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


May I be so bold as to draw attention to a missing apostrophe?

In reply to summo:


I think this is called reductio ad absurdum or something like that.

In reply to Chris Harris:


I call Cole Slaw!

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Of course. So how do you drawn the line in respecting a given portion of societies wishes, whilst blocking others?

In reply to summo:


I think the owners of the Australian rock have a far more compelling case to be descended of the pre-invasion people that modern day “druids”...