Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 11 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 211
Author
Grampians Access 2019
One Day Hero
19-Jun-2019
11:34:54 PM
On 19-Jun-2019 Dave J wrote:
>If it turns out that traditional owners and PV ideas of significant areas
>and zoning are truly in alignment, I won't contest that. I wlll just sell
>and move

If Araps gets banned, the Nati property market will be a train crash worth watching :)
Ithomas
20-Jun-2019
6:24:12 AM
ODH: Maybe you should focus on the main game here which is how to fit rock climbing into a new future where Indigenous rights are protected and climbers still able to climb. It would be possible if climbers approach the crisis in good faith. The problem will not go away or be dismissed with talk about fights or climbers rights. To borrow a phrase: Indigenous people always have been and always will be struggling to regain their rights. Climbers, like any other interest group have to come to terms with that struggle. You have hijacked this discussion with ill considered comments about my climbing history. I think you should stop obsessing about that. You do not know what I have climbed (itís much more than you think) and in any case, my climbing history is totally irrelevant to the discussion. If I were a suspicious type I might suspect that have been stalking me. If thatís the case, you need to improve your surveillance techniques. Your real estate comment is premature and off the mark too. People of Natimuk might consider that the future holds an opportunity for the area to remain a Mecca for climbing as well as a focus for indigenous and environmentally friendly tourism. Playing the smart-arse and cursing will not give you entry into the real discussion.
Wendy
20-Jun-2019
7:59:05 AM
I'm so happy to see a few other objectors to working with the Lib Dems come out of the woodwork. It's been disturbing to see a whole hearted embrace of them by many, just because their angry words happen to coalign with climber's angry words on a small aspect of their policies. It seems incredibly narrow thinking.

https://wendiferously.blogspot.com/2019/06/are-raving-libertarians-good-bedfellows.html

https://wendiferously.blogspot.com/2019/06/whats-wrong-with-working-with-lib-dems.html
gfdonc
20-Jun-2019
10:26:46 AM
It's amusing for me to see several of you climb (sorry) onto a soapbox of party-politik as a result of a pretty simplistic motion being put forward.
FWIW I watched the whole debate streaming live (I had a day off for other reasons), then wrote to Bev McArthur and Andy Meddick afterwards. It's unfortunate that David Limbrick was cut short due to time constraints as he made good points in the 2 minutes he had, and I'm sure was well prepped with other input.
I had to look up which party each person represents, but did it make any difference? In the end the Greens candidate had the least insights IMHO and the Libs and Animal Justice seemed to be flying the flag.
If you're a Labour voter and were expecting Gayle Tierney to beat the drum about mismanagement of the situation well, you haven't worked out how politics worked have you? She was only going to represent the establishment view. The dynamics are that the members in opposition get to ask the hard questions and score points off the incumbent government. So they're furthering our cause right now, regardless of what other political and social agendas they may wish to further.
Apart from the delight in hearing "grade 28" uttered in Parliament (as if anyone knew what that meant) one key take-away I got from yesterday is that the issue of access to public lands is far broader than the climbing community. We may be getting a lot of press at present but there are many groups affected by changes in legislation and land management and maybe the broader issue will only be solved at a legislative level.

Oh and to address Diddy's rant:
> Australian enjoyment of outdoor recreation does not trump cultural heritage
Well the motion doesn't say that. Read it again perhaps??

Tastrad
20-Jun-2019
10:55:22 AM
Taipan sucks donkey dicks... compared to Ben Lomond. So different in style, so trad...a different sport altogether. Damo donkey boy would be too scared to leave the ground at Africa, let alone be bothered to forsake convenience and quickdraws to walk 3 hrs to get there in the first place.

Let's hope Parks Tasmania doesn't get the same ideas as Parks Vic... bolting in National Parks was always a bad idea and unsustainable environmentally. Ben Lomond is bolt free, but there is a bloody great ski field on top. I only know of Aboriginal culturally sensitive climbing venues at areas such as Rocky Cape and Sisters Beach. I don't know about Freycinet, Tasman Peninsula, Kunanyi... Hey Zoo, any ideas where we might face the same issues in Tassie?
ithomas
20-Jun-2019
12:05:13 PM
Hi Gerry
Because of my work experience I know where many sensitive sites are located but the answer to your question is of course to consult with the Aboriginal community. Be aware that even though it is the right course of action it could open a Pandora's Box of complications which can only be resolved by genuine openness on the part of climbers.
In my opinion it is best to step forward with propositions that involve the community in some way, perhaps in a manner similar to that which I detailed earlier. If not, at some time in the future the baleful eye of Tasmanian management will inevitably turn towards climbers. It's not a shoot from the hip exercise and there are no shortcuts. Plenty of evidence from North and Central Australia regarding just how complex these matters are.
'Zoo
One Day Hero
20-Jun-2019
10:02:54 PM
On 20-Jun-2019 Ithomas wrote:
>I think you should stop obsessing about that. You do
>not know what I have climbed (itís much more than you think) and in any
>case, my climbing history is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Your history (and your future) in climbing are entirely relevant. Now that Gerry has chimed in, let me walk you through worked example. I couldn't give a flying fuch about the closure of Hillwood. It's a poorly conceived, mediocre pile of choss which was developed in a lame fashion. I was never going to go back there anyway because that bumbly crag with its complete lack of climbing lines wasn't even worth visiting, let alone bolting. Therefore the closure doesn't affect me at all. I have some sympathy for Gerry since he's obviously attached to the place, but I'm hardly likely to try and help out in any meaningful way.

It would be nice if you could admit (to yourself at least) that your personal investment in and connection to the contentious Victorian areas are similar to my connection to Hillwood. Dave, on the other hand, has probably spent more time in the affected areas of the Grampians than any other living person (climber or non climber). I'm substantially more interested in his take on the matter than I am in your armchair assessments.

>If I
>were a suspicious type I might suspect that have been stalking me.

I'm writing the ACT climbing guide (with a couple of others), I know where you were and what you were doing on any given weekend between about '76 and '80 :)
ithomas
21-Jun-2019
3:33:38 AM
ODH. You are sounding a little creepy now. Try not to embarrass yourself any more than you already have and focus instead on how to contribute positively to the problem in the Grampians: itís bigger than my tick list (which as it turns out includes climbing in the Grampians most weekends while living in Melbourne in 1976 and 1977) plus many times before and since.
Oh yes, the zenith of my climbing was attained in 1972. After that it was a downhill slide; but a very happy and enjoyable downhill slide! That is not the point. The access problem is more significant than anyoneís tick list or ambitions. At this stage, any suggestions from armchair climbers should not be dismissed. I guess you also dismiss opinions from non-climbers as well?

By the way, Hillwood is a lovely geological oddity that has been completely done over by sports climbers. If I was the owner I would close off access as well.

Just like anyone, if I have any new thoughts about the access problems I will post them here. I hope that someone other than you reads them. I think that I will now self-moderate and stop baiting or being baited by you. Waste of time.
kieranl
21-Jun-2019
11:50:05 AM
On 19-Jun-2019 ithomas wrote:
>DD: you can all me by my name: Ian.
>
>ODH. Every single argument by climbers that I have heard concerning bans
>have all been said before by Mountain Cattle people, four-wheel drivers,
>trail bikers, mountain bikers, bee keepers, orchid enthusiasts, photographers.
>All of those groups, and more, seem to have a sense of entitlement based
>on their love of the natural world and their estimation of what constitutes
>long term use.
>Getting angry and self indignant will not help.
>
>Climbers will have to give something and it will hurt. Itís not a game
>and itís clear that the world of free access for all has changed since
>Wik, Mabo, land rights and increasing visitor pressures.
>
>Climbers are not immune from the reality of how this will play out. Just
>as surfing changed from a handful of enthusiasts in the 60ís to an enormous
>publicity driven world of magazines, photographs, surf shops, surf schools,
>clothing businesses and now have to deal with a legacy of totally overcrowded
>waves, polluted camping spots and access regulations, so climbers have
>sewn the seeds of the present dispute. Not through malicious intent, just
>through entitlement and lazy thinking.
>We have all participated.
>
>I am sure the good people of Natimuk and various climbers groups have
>analysed the situation and developed plans. None will succeed if climbers
>are not prepared to relinquish some of that which was not theirs in the
>first place. Itís not a matter of winning. Itís a matter of adjusting to
>changes which will take effect over the coming decades.
>
>
Hi Ian,

Thanks for your contribution. Well said.

Kieran
johnpitcairn
22-Jun-2019
11:04:40 AM
As a visitor and climber from NZ, I can tell you that many many regular visitors to Australia are watching, concerned, and sympathetic.

As a visitor from NZ, which suffers its own environmental and cultural pressures from untrammelled tourism and the rule of the dollar, I can only pass on my horror at how this may be playing out.

I can only imagine how Victorian climbers who have climbed at Djurite/Arapiles for 50+ years may be feeling. I can also only imagine how the local Aboriginal community who have been there for many thousands of years may be feeling.

If I step back from my love for the place as a visitor and climber, and relinquish any sense of entitlement or ownership my privileged position in the world brings me, and think about what this might mean for those whose place was undeniably stolen from them, and how its return might make them feel, and how I might feel if I were them, then what does my climbing there matter?

But still , after 150-odd days over the last 10 years, Djurite/Arapiles calls to my heart. I wonder if I may still be allowed to return as a guest, sit in a rocky place by myself, appreciate the flora and fauna, listen to the ancient land whisper to me, climb without damage, without bolts, anchors or chalk, and leave it as it was before I arrived.

I wonder if there might be a dialogue directly between climbers and traditional owners, without mediation or interference by obviously political and commercial entities who have a toxic and artificial struggle embedded in their nature.

I wonder if perhaps something like that might work? I can only hope so.
Ithomas
22-Jun-2019
11:49:23 AM
Thoughtful and certainly well worth doing. Nearly all indigenous groups call out to be genuinely recognised by the broader community. What you suggest is a positive way for rockclimbers to get involved and therefore to participate in the future direction of our pastime and in some cases, livelihoods.

 Page 11 of 11. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 211
There are 211 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints