Climbing Uluru has been a controversial issue for a number of years and will
be officially banned at the end of the year. However, people still want to climb
Uluru. For most people Uluru is seen as a landmark of Australia but for the
local indigenous community, Uluru is a sacred site. It’s also a pretty
treacherous climb, 37 people have died on the route since it opened in the
1950’s. What do you think LiveTribers, is it wrong to climb Uluru? Or do
you think it’s a good way to bring tourists to the area?
Posted by on 27 May 2019
yes not only for cultural reasons but for preservation as well
I don't see climbing Uluru as "wrong", but it shows disrespect for the
landowners expressed wishes. It is also dangerous. More than fifty people have
died on the climb (falls, heart attacks etc). This death toll is a big burden
for the owners who feel sadness for the deceased and their families. When I
visited 6 years ago, I decided to not climb. I did the walk around the base, and
refrained from photographing the sacred sites.
A fee to climb does sound like a good idea in principle. Miney back intonthe
community and all. How about if someone wanted to climb they first need to hear
from the indigenous people the reasons for it being considered sacred and the
stories that go with those reasons. Then it's a case of the climbers conscious
and morals if they wish to proceed.
You don't have to let people climb on or over ulluru to sell this Marvell. Just
like all of us.that have made money from this land we share.we have had.to
diversify our way of making money. Whether it's due to a change in respect
or.due.to weather changes.or other issues.with an asset as.rare as ULLURU there
are many way's to earn monies from this remarkable peace of land. Surely people
would rather say a glamour indigenous photo. A photo so original.standing there
in the fore-ground is "ULLURU".with natural lightning strikes borders with
traditional dot work painted onto your photo.THAT.I WOULD BUY$.GARY.
I'm not sure there's a difference between Australians and Aboriginals these
days. We're all Australians, now. If it's a tourist destination, why not let
people climb it? The Aboriginals are happy to sell their boomerangs and other
tribal/cultural trinkets. The Aboriginals should in fact be encouraging people
to visit and climb the rock, which is the entire reason people go to the
Northern Territory in the first place. See the nose-dive the NT Tourism industry
takes once the banning takes place. You could easily say all of Australia is
sacred. I know The Grampians was a campsite for Aboriginals also, though people
climb The Pinnacle all the time. Time for everyone to understand the motivations
of tourists if there is to continue to be a tourism industry in Australia.
Teach the traditional owners to fly. Then people could get some original shots
of ULLURU as a whole. Not just a photo from one of 4-5 sides at certain times.It
could be seen and photographed from wherever your pilots knowledge places you.
Better training more interesting.the flight interesting flight. Returning
people's.who wouldn't love an "ULLURU". ONE OF PEICE OF ART DEPICTING ONE OF
THOUSANDS OF ORIGINAL POSSES AVAILABLE ONLY FROM YOUR OWN
I must say, WOW, to every point you tried to make, firstly there will always be
a vast difference between the Australian and Aboriginal Indigenous cultures, an
Obvious difference "Respect" for the land, it's people and a strong spiritual
aspect. Australia has sold more than 1/3 of the country to China. The only
people I see sell boomerangs and 'trinkets' are asians at the markets. More
importantly there are incredibly so many areas within Australia to use for
tourism, but even sadly Australians are travelling overseas without realizing
what they have right under there own feet. Money money money.
I visited about 20 years ago - I did not climb but was tempted - but did not
because of health problems. I think there are becoming too many sacred sites
around Australia - its time we took Australia back.
I climbed Uluru way back in the late 1960's. The first part was difficult but
there was a hand rail to hang onto on the way up. Once past the hand rail
however, it was very enjoyable and a not to difficult climb. The view from the
top was spectacular as one could see far across that beautiful red land. When
the climb was completed we all received a badge saying "I climbed Ayres Rock." I
would hate to have missed out on that experience. I respect the aboriginal race
and their culture but I think it's a shame to ban people from climbing the rock.
It's such a beautiful part of the Australian culture. Yes, there have been
tragedies, with people falling and losing their lives. Maybe they were running
or somehow not paying attention. All I can say is that I was with a tour group
and it was very safe. Not one person was in danger at any stage of the climb. I
have never forgotten the experience of climbing Uluru, as it is now named,
visiting the Olga's and camping under the stars overnight.
My, you are cynical. You have no understanding of what we took from indigenous
people. Captain Cook described the natives of Arnhem Land as living "better
than the kings of Europe" . They did not have the necessities of life as
Europeans knew it, but they did not have to work hard day in day out to keep
body and soul together either. We took the hunting places away and corralled
them onto missions and made them feel lesser beings. We owe them big time.
I recently visited Uluru. Respecting traditional owners' views I did not climb
Uluru. I walked around while enjoying the sight of our Australian Icon. Is
tourist attraction to Uluru purely based on the fact 'being able to climb or not
being able to climb"? If we take any explorer/adventurer would love to climb a
challenging landscape which seems okay similar to Kings Canyon Rim Walk ( Which
is open to public yet a challenging and an enjoyable achievement. Yet certain
reserved areas such as Uluru on my point of view let it be as it is. Climbing
better be restricted. If public climbing is allowed it only should be a
designated area. In order to promote it as an Australian Iconic Land Mark and a
tourist attraction; more research and discussion is needed with traditional
people too because both Uluru and Traditional People are Australian too. We all
Australians got an obligation to look after both Uluru and some traditional
cultural values. Composition of the rock, geography and topography are areas of
interest for further research and effects of possible human and industrial
damage at Uluru and surrounding areas are more important at this point of
discussion than using '" Climbing Uluru" as a tourist attraction. At the moment
there is not enough reasons except for ' respecting aboriginal people -
Australians' why it is essential to ban "Uluru Climb". As a world heritage site
if we all Australians can develop more exploration tracks and other climbs where
Uluru's beauty can be observed from a closer distance it will be more attractive
for tourists and other local and international visiting groups.
It is a sacred place. Do we let people clamber on top of the roof of churches or
synagogues or mosques? do we let people trample all over things we value? For
goodness sake, it is not like there are no other spaces upon which to climb.
Have some basic respect, decency and consideration and stay off Uluru, it is the
least we can do considering the damage done to this country.
You do realise that Aboriginals used to set fire to all brush land at whim to
hunt game, don't you? Sure, it did also open some seed pods that required fire
also such as wattles, though why do you think Australia is so denuded in
comparison to other continents? 100,000 years of burning bush-land in 40+ degree
heat and our plants being oil-based with eucalyptus will do that. With no
fire-fighters, they burned down entire forests for thousands of miles...
Considering the damage done? Sustainability? OK, I've considered it.
People always talk about how cultures lived in total harmony with nature in some
forgotten time, when the reality is, the Aboriginals didn't really... the only
reason they were at least "more harmonious" was lack of significant population.
I think it's a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side" to be
honest. Get a 25-million person population of Aboriginals and how "sustainable"
would they be in reality?
We all need to eat and it's copulation in extremis that causes issues regarding
sustainability, though of course it's everyone's right to have 10 kids if they
want, and apparently my right to have to pay baby bonuses to help someone take
care of their kid... last time I checked, I wasn't involved in the act to create
their kid, so why should I pay for it?
Too many babies = too many mouths to feed = destruction of the land through
unsustainable practices to feed the masses. Anyone not reached that conclusion
So we need to clear more grazing land, we need more cattle, battery hens, etc.
and we no longer farm the native animals, we introduce species.
Convexly, in terms of sustainability, then we screw the farmers through giant
corporations for small margins for which the farmers can't sustain ongoing
financial obligations, so ultimately we're creating a society that's
unsustainable based on population growth and will eventually starve.
You want to talk about global warming? We'll all be dead from starvation well
before then. No trees = No oxygen = no air = no humans.
All of the so-called "Greenies" still eat, they still build houses out of wood
and mined metals, they still drive cars, wear clothes and leather shoes. Not
sure where all the supplies comes from? Maybe they need to try to have 5 less
kids per household instead and walk to the local school which has solar panels
In terms of context, we're talking about a rock here. It's not a house, not a
church, was never "lived in" except for habitation of caves, and it's PUBLIC
PROPERTY owned by National Parks, not by a minority group of people.
The biggest issue these days is extensive support of minority groups to the
exclusion of common sense. Let's be clear. The people you're talking about and
trying to appease are long-dead. The "sacred sites" you're referring to are not
Aboriginal, they're Australian and part of a greater heritage that belongs to
If Australia decided to let people climb the rock, then that's it. No more
grumbling from the shadows from a group of people saying they're of a different
race. They're Australians. The more you pander to a minority group, the more
extortionate the demands become. Why do terrorists attack things? Publicity...
it promotes their cause. How is it any different to Aboriginals wanting a
separate cultural identity? Again, the point is, we are all Australians.
What do you think would happen if I was Greek and decided to go back to Sparta
or Macedonia and started saying that "This is Spartan (or Macedonian) land,
Greeks get out"? Let bygones be bygones.
Wonder why Palestine and Israel are still fighting after 5,500 years? Because a
father gave his two sons the same block of land and told them to share it...
Why did World War I start? Because Royal families had a bit of a domestic and
took sides, creating numerous different secret alliances, then there was an
assassination. The English Monarchy are in fact related to just about every
other Royal family in Europe. They were in fact originally German by the way
(Saxe-Coburg and Gotha don't sound very English, does it now?). Why do you think
most European countries are so small? You guessed it, minority groups fragment
There are wars immemorial that can tell the same story of an invading population
subjugating a population which were then ultimately blended together as a single
population, so what's different in this regard with the people once called
Are there still Saxons, Celts and Normans running around France and the UK
saying that people should honour their ancestral sites? From memory, one of the
King Richard's was found buried under a car-park in the middle of London...
If there is to be a culture named "Aboriginal", when are we going to see more
Aboriginal people in Parliament? Like Fiji, when is the Great Council of Elders
going to be formed that then convey their wishes to the Parliament via a
representative where they can assist in creating policy for not only one sacred
site, but for all of them, to the benefit of all cultures in Australia and not
just their own? If a group called the "Aboriginals" want representation and a
seat at the Adults table, then they can form a party and use the electoral
system to contribute to change and put their points forward for policy
consideration. Look at Eddie Mabo. He felt strongly enough about it to actually
do something, not just sit around a fire and talk rubbish.
Even if we had 100,000 people climb all over the rock, in 10,000 years, it will
still be there and point of fact is, tourism money coming into the NT is a vast
proponent of what supports the communities there.
You do also realise that the "cave paintings" in most cases were probably bored
teenagers much like today's bored teenagers that hid from their parents to get
blotto and drew on the walls. Sure, they're wonderful, though so is graffiti
that many people hated and the government removed continually until they
realised there was some dollars to be made from it.
When I was a teenager, kids got arrested for graffiti. These days, 30 years on,
now it's socially accepted and people come to Melbourne to look at the fantastic
graffiti. Guess my friends and I didn't need to cop all those beatings from the
Police and get chased through train yards at night, since this "art form" is now
considered a marketable commodity for the tourism industry...
We have elevated the status of cave paintings to "ancestral depictions" and
romanticize these things, though in reality how do you know that some of these
cave painting areas weren't the local lavatory where they'd get their scribble
pad out and go to the toilet (i.e. a wall)?
I'm not saying there shouldn't be respect for the ancestors of any culture or of
their ways, though I want you to think about what the ancestors of those
cultures would have thought of the romanticization of their drawings. They'd
probably laugh and in reality say, "I was too busy trying to feed the kids. I
just drew on the wall and told the kids a story one night by the fire so they'd
bloody go to sleep because I was tired"...
I think this is a First World problem... When you have to go out and hunt all
day to put food on the table, do you have time to debate decorum?
Oh, and to summarize, I'm in fact part-Aboriginal by the way, so whilst people
might be thinking "blasphemy", I don't really care...
My Great Grandmother had an illegitimate child to an Aboriginal man at the end
of the 1800's out in woop-woop (when Gippsland was still a week's ride by horse
from Melbourne) and she was sent to a convent. My Mother grew up knowing my
Great Grandmother as "Auntie Winnie", even though she was really her Great
Grandmother. My Great Grandmother needed to be seen to be distancing herself
from her illegitimate child (my Grandfather) and therefore couldn't keep the
honorific of being the mother of the child...
If you want me to take the Aboriginal route and claim ancestral ownership, then
I don't have a problem with people walking on "my rock". Go for it. It's part of
my heritage and it's also part of Australia. Send me a cheque! :)
Finally, I don't go around saying "I'm Aboriginal", nor do I look Aboriginal,
either. I'm not Adam Goode pretending to throw spears at people at football
games and creating divisions and simply put, I look at myself as "Australian",
Everyone would be far better off and far more at one with nature if they stopped
creating divisions and giving themselves titles to show their differences and
continually seeking the limelight.
You wanted someone's take on it that was part of the result of the "Stolen
Generations"? Well, there, you have it.
I think "Whiteman care more about this than Blackfella"...
We all bleed red last time I checked and it doesn't say "Aboriginal" on my
Years ago when they changed the name from Ayres Rock to Uluru and the indigenous
took ownership of the area I am sure they said that the people will still be
able to climb the rock, view the rock etc. and in no way hinder these
activities. Now it has come to pass that the area is becoming closed to other
people. I have been there although I did not climb the rock. I think respect
must be adhered to however for the indigenous beliefs.
I think disrespect for the land and other people though works both ways. There
are some indigenous people who disrespect the land and leave filth so lets not
just point the finger at other cultures including Australians.
I feel that they could hire more indigenous people as guides as they already
have a few and educate the tourists who want to view this wonder of the world.
This way I am sure there would be no disrespect by a few idiots.
Like so many other natural and splendid wonders, let your eyes enjoy the
spectacle. Or walk around it to appreciate the enormity and beauty, Why do you
need to walk over it for the simple sake of saying "I've done it!"
It's not wrong but the aboriginal people that belong to.the land holding have
voiced their concerns as a whole and have eliminated the ability to climb on a
sacred site - until they choose an alternative their wishes should be
People should be able to share in the natural wonders that our earth provides as
long as they don’t damage it. May need some guides to keep people on the
safest path. Same as the barrier reef. Go visit it belongs to us all but don’t
damage the coral. The rock Uluru is pretty hardy. I think we as Australians
should visit and appreciate it. I climbed it years ago and it is amazing to
stand on the top. One feels very connected with our land. It can only be
positive to centre yourself in the land we are born or the land you have adopted
for the newcomers.
100% wrong, we need to respect Indigenous culture, it is the least we can do
after over 200 years of destroying their culture.
Those who still want to climb are just plain selfish and disrespectful and that
in the Indigenous culture it is actually bad luck to.
It is only wrong if you believe it to be wrong. I climbed it a few years ago and
really enjoyed the experience. The view from the top is awesome but I agree with
Katrina that it should be for a fee to benefit the traditional owners.
I think it should be allowed, but under specific conditions, such as a paid for
guided tour from the traditional owners of that land, and all funds raised go
into a fund to be used for the benefit of those traditional land owners.
Uluru does belong to the traditional owners, it was the europeans who decided
that it was land to be claimed on their behalf, so I do agree that Uluru belongs
to the traditional land owners, and I believe that they should have the right to
make decisions, and hopefully ones that benefit all. For example, allowing
tourists, but under their guidelines and rules. If anyone could get a group of
tourists to the top of Uluru safely it would be those who know it best.
Drop in and share their house backyard and car when you pay the mortgage on the
house and rego for their car. I'm sure you will be welcome.
The rock is free, no one paid for it, no one owns it. It's a natural phenomenon
that doesn't belong to anybody and anyone who wants to should be free to explore
or climb it. It's just another tourist attraction.