UKC

A temporary access ban has been enforced on two locations in Grampians National Park, Australia due to the introduction of protection zones following recently rediscovered Aboriginal heritage. The entirety of Taipan Wall (Gunigalk), Spurt Wall and a section of Bundaleer (Bugiga) have been placed under a 'Temporary Protection Zone' with no public access permitted.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

My guess is the N.P authorities naively believe that  banning access to thousands of people to a site which has importance to a very small number of aboriginals will somehow make up for centuries of racism and persecution.

spoiler alert....

it wont

In reply to climbercool:

The temporary ban is supported by the aboriginal people: https://www.facebook.com/barengi.council/photos/pcb.4095794173824112/409578...

They clearly think it's important, so maybe it will help to make up for it...

In reply to SenzuBean:

The statement you linked from the local indigenous group mentions surveys which showed "recreational activity is impacting significantly on cultural sites".  It would be great to see these surveys so that i can understand if the damage by climbers is truly significant or not. 

I suppose i should have looked at these surveys before making my initial post.

In reply to climbercool: That's the sort of attitude that gets you a more than temporary ban

In reply to UKC News:

Simon Carter has been posting on his website about this for a while now.  I am sure  there are two sides to the story, but Simon’s account of how the authorities have moved the bans forward make for frustrating reading and it doesn’t sound like climbers were ever given much of a voice in the debate and were perhaps even used as scapegoats to push forward with bans.  

Latest article here:  https://savegrampiansclimbing.org/2020/08/14/taipan-spurt-and-bundaleer-tem...

In reply to UKC News:

It's not as straightforward as you might think. Don't misconstrue my words below (cultural significance is 100% important), but the actual management of these bans for areas such as Taipan isn't specifically related to areas that have been historically considered "culturally significant" by the Traditional Owners.

The Victorian government introduced substantial penalties for site managers/owners where "culturally significant sites" are damaged or destroyed, but the legislation is incredibly non-specific about what this means (specifically: what actually constitutes "culturally significant sites"), with a modern Australian government approach of "let it be interpreted and resolved at common law" (ie. let them sort it out in court).

Necessarily this means that until it ends up at court, and judge-made law determines what exactly is culturally significant, organisations like Parks Victoria are terrified about their liability. If you don't know what constitutes such a thing until it has been tried at court, you would naturally be terrified of anything that could possibly (vaguely) be construed as culturally significant in any way. Hence broad-scale, blanket bans, with flimsy (at best) justification in terms of rationalised specificity. 

Though there are definitely areas in The Grampians where sites that *are* regarded as significant by the Traditional Owners have been closed, and certainly warrant an in-depth assessment of whether or not climbing can co-exist there, the justification to close some major -world class- climbing areas like The Gallery and Taipan is not based on items of cultural significance (as the term has been historically asserted by the Traditional Owners), which means its less a case of impingement on sensitive areas, and more a case of no one really knowing what "exactly" the laws mean at this this point in time.

As to the Traditional Owners supporting the bans... When you're a group struggling for relevance and empowerment, why wouldn't you support any such empowerment when it is offered. The justification for *some* sites may be tangential at best, but from their perspective the opposing perspective is both irrelevant and small-scale enough to be called inconsequential.

My criticism of all of this is primarily the lazy approach to modern legislation, whereby its less about introducing laws that are designed to be clearly understood, and more about a "token" effort for the sake of political positioning in which the real power of the legislation actually resides with the courts -when *eventually* it gets there. Until then, everyone who might fall under its purview will respond from fear if liability. 

In reply to SenzuBean:

Sir, you appear to have forgotten, black live only matter when it doesn't affect climbing. 

You are so last month. 

 

In reply to UKC News:

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.

In reply to Denning76:

I would say it really depends on what is found. From Carters posts linked above. A lot of the areas banned have not shown any archaeological deposits. 

Naturally some have, and they should be preserved and protected.

The same could perhaps be implemented in the peak... I once saw an old historical value stonewheel there. So all access outside the paved roads is strictly forbidden and law breakers will be fined or jailed .

In reply to Denning76:

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?