UKBouldering.com

Grampians Access - Parks Vic Draft Management Plan (Read 36673 times)

monkey boy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1207
  • Karma: +65/-0
Vertical Life Magazine have written a great article about the Parks Vic draft plan for management of the Grampians, to be blunt if this plan goes through bouldering will cease to exist in the Grampians, neither will hard sport climbing and the quantity of trad and other sport climbing will be severely diminished.

The article isn't too long and really well written. At the bottom it has various ways you can register dissatisfaction with the plan, the easiest being to join Mike Rockell's submission. His 33 page submission questioning the plan is really well put together from a cultural, historical and natural point of view as well as being able to maintain access to more climbing areas.

The Grampians is a truly wild and incredible space and access if not challenged is going to go to those who can afford to walk a path, which is essentially a motorway through the heart of the Grampians stopping at services along the way. Not only will climbing be hugely reduced but exploration and enjoyment of the wild too.

https://www.verticallifemag.com.au/2021/01/the-future-of-climbing-in-gariwerd-grampians/


spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3150
  • Karma: +174/-4
That is a profoundly depressing document. I'm glad I have had the fortune to visit once but it sounds like its approaching game over for climbing in Vic.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 10004
  • Karma: +579/-10
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

remus

Online
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3178
  • Karma: +170/-1
Thanks for the link Monkey Boy. It makes sad reading though, as far as I can tell parks victoria have no interest whatsoever in working with climbers and are quite happy to fuck them over for no reason whatsoever.

Davo

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 544
  • Karma: +28/-4
A grim read indeed. Have emailed and asked to be added to the submission

Dave

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11600
  • Karma: +724/-22
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

Well put like that it does sound a bit ridiculous, possibly the oldest culture in the world vs 50 years of colonial recreation. Having done quite a bit of reading on aboriginal culture I would like to think if climbers and aboriginals were to spend some time out in the country together they would find a lot of common ground, but clearly there's a lot more going on, seemingly combining attempts to reconcile the guilt of extermination and oppression with the marketisation of the landscape. Messy.


Duncan campbell

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 808
  • Karma: +48/-2
Agree wholeheartedly with this JB. Climbers and aboriginal people have a lot of shared views over this. We both love gariwerd and want to protect it as best we can.

PV seem to have fucked this time and time again which make me think that there is more going on like you said. It wouldn’t be that hard to get a few climbers and traditional owners together to figure out what was acceptable and what wasn’t. I loved viewing the traditional cultural sites when I was there and read a bit on the subject and was appalled by how we treated them. I don’t believe that banning climbing over ragging around in 4x4s is going to solve that though

Edit: I am lucky enough to have been to Australia twice and so will never go again but have sent an email to PV in the hopes that others can experience the sweet feeling of taking the victory lob off the top of serpentine!

T_B

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3110
  • Karma: +151/-5
What a mess.

Does Oz have anything equivalent to the BMC?

It strikes me that would be helpful. I thought the article was overly defensive. He starts off by conceding that climbers’ actions have resulted in many of the issues, then writes a whole paragraph justifying chalk use and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.

It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4348
  • Karma: +351/-26
It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

From what I've read, I get the impression that Parks Victoria don't really do dialogue

and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.
I take your general point that saying "we're culpable" and then making excuses/reasons can seem poor, but I'm not sure why you drew that out for comment. The fact that it's common there but not at other climbing areas that aren't next to a popular tourist track would point the finger at non-climbers. If you ban climbing at impossible roof it wont make there be fewer beercans and fires!

In any case, I emailed Parks Vic. I figured that given I've only been there for one extended trip it was best to own my lack of local expertise and address it more as a plea for engagement with local climbers on how to allow access to the world-class areas in a responsible and sustainable way.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4348
  • Karma: +351/-26
I'm glad I have had the fortune to visit

Yeah I f*ckin hate people on insta saying they're #thankful and #grateful but on this one I'm both!

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 10004
  • Karma: +579/-10
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

Well put like that it does sound a bit ridiculous, possibly the oldest culture in the world vs 50 years of colonial recreation.

Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

Davo

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 544
  • Karma: +28/-4


Edit: I am lucky enough to have been to Australia twice and so will never go again but have sent an email to PV in the hopes that others can experience the sweet feeling of taking the victory lob off the top of serpentine!

Nice way of mentioning you have done Serpentine! I am very jealous

monkey boy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1207
  • Karma: +65/-0
What a mess.

Does Oz have anything equivalent to the BMC?

It strikes me that would be helpful. I thought the article was overly defensive. He starts off by conceding that climbers’ actions have resulted in many of the issues, then writes a whole paragraph justifying chalk use and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.

It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

They don't really have equivalent of BMC, each state has it's own climbing club but the one in Victoria didn't really exist until a few years ago. They also have Cliffcare which is a little like access fund but much smaller and they don't have the financial backing to do much against all the government money given to traditional owners and parks vic.

The biggest shame is that preservation, climbing and even development of tourism can exist there is done correctly but parks vic don't seem bothered about climbers, probably because the amount of money we bring to the area is much smaller than tourists. I think a lot of people will end up leaving the area if the plan is accepted and this will have a big impact on it.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2823
  • Karma: +179/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

There are worse ideas!  Can’t imagine there being quite so large queues on K2.


When this comes up I always think about Hollow Mountain Cave, are any areas of that restricted? Seems like if anywhere would have had cultural significance, it’s that place.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11600
  • Karma: +724/-22
Quote
Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

I don't really agree with that interpretation, unless it is aimed at the park authority rather than the broader stakeholders?

I've done a fair bit of reading on aboriginal culture and the Australian landscape - far more than I have on the climbing there - and one of the most obvious insights was that Taipan must have been one of the most sacred sites for many, many miles. It doesn't really seem plausible that a highly particular and visible landscape feature such as this would not have been incorporated as a central element of that sacred landscape. But my understanding is that this knowledge was almost completely lost through simply shooting the holders like cattle. Those that survived retain only the scraps of a wealth of detailed cultural knowledge that one anthropologist compared his insights into as 'being permitted to peer through the keyhole of a cathedral'.  The idea that this culture is only being valued over climbing due to antecedence is I'm afraid, pretty crass, and it's hard not to see it as another example of white privilege and the colonial trampling these people have received. You could compare it to exterminating climbers and then basing any subsequent estimation of landscape value to climbers purely on where the bolts are, ignoring the obvious bigger picture.

So I think there absolutely solid grounds for both genuine remorse and reconciliation and recognizing the significance of these features. I don't agree for a second that automatic bans on access are right or proper or that Parks Victoria are handling this well. But it's not at all surprising to me that, in the context of their culture, the first and perhaps only thing those native people who remain would really look for is control over access to the land. I'm a great believer that climbing often promotes meaningful connections to place but how often does that really extend beyond tourism?


Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11600
  • Karma: +724/-22
When this comes up I always think about Hollow Mountain Cave, are any areas of that restricted? Seems like if anywhere would have had cultural significance, it’s that place.

Agreed. And yes it's all banned to climbers, but you can still walk there.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 10004
  • Karma: +579/-10
Quote
Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

I don't really agree with that interpretation, unless it is aimed at the park authority rather than the broader stakeholders?

I've done a fair bit of reading on aboriginal culture and the Australian landscape - far more than I have on the climbing there - and one of the most obvious insights was that Taipan must have been one of the most sacred sites for many, many miles. It doesn't really seem plausible that a highly particular and visible landscape feature such as this would not have been incorporated as a central element of that sacred landscape. But my understanding is that this knowledge was almost completely lost through simply shooting the holders like cattle. Those that survived retain only the scraps of a wealth of detailed cultural knowledge that one anthropologist compared his insights into as 'being permitted to peer through the keyhole of a cathedral'.  The idea that this culture is only being valued over climbing due to antecedence is I'm afraid, pretty crass, and it's hard not to see it as another example of white privilege and the colonial trampling these people have received. You could compare it to exterminating climbers and then basing any subsequent estimation of landscape value to climbers purely on where the bolts are, ignoring the obvious bigger picture.

So I think there absolutely solid grounds for both genuine remorse and reconciliation and recognizing the significance of these features. I don't agree for a second that automatic bans on access are right or proper or that Parks Victoria are handling this well. But it's not at all surprising to me that, in the context of their culture, the first and perhaps only thing those native people who remain would really look for is control over access to the land. I'm a great believer that climbing often promotes meaningful connections to place but how often does that really extend beyond tourism?
It's entirely aimed at the park authorities. It strikes me that entirely legitimate grievances have been, as I said, weaponised out of convenience or deeper antipathy. Clearly this has not been justified entirely on the basis of 'who was there first', but equally clearly the value of sites to climbers has not been taken at all seriously. Diminishing climber's interest on the basis of 'white privilege' ignores the fact that white privilege is just shorthand for the abuse of power against the powerless. Yesterday that was the aboriginal people, now it's the climbers. Yesterday's oppression effectively used to justify today's. Setting minority groups who ought  to have shared interests against each other  as cover for illiberal authoritarian overreach.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11600
  • Karma: +724/-22
Hmm. I'm not sure the oppression suffered by the two parties here really bears comparison. Try looking at this from the perspective of an aboriginal. What would their priorities be? How would you convince them that climbers are the good guys they have lots in common with rather than just more bad white guys who feel entitled to trample freely across your heritage? One of the most central compenets of aboriginal culture is the way access to land was granted. There was never any blanket freedom to roam, it was based on a system of rights conferred by birth and subsequent negotiated reciprocal arrangements. The big difference with western modes is that this was not done by areas but by paths, but access was something earned.

I really think relying on your gut feelings of right and wrong here are a part of the problem not the solution. Those feelings are not relevant outside of the context they were developed in and It's that attitude that has got us where we are.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20331
  • Karma: +650/-11
Its worth considering that traditional owners culture and values are really different from western ones.... just massively different. Comparing them is not straightforward..


Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 10004
  • Karma: +579/-10
JB - I'm not suggesting there's equivalence, just that two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think it's so much a case of gut instinct, more of looking at the value of a site on the basis of first principles. The cultural utility of the area is maximised by a settlement fairly weighting all valid interests. The current proposal doesn't look anything like that to me, but I accept my opinion is biased and I have no great understanding of aboriginal value systems. I'd be interested to know what you think a fair settlement would look like.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 02:19:13 pm by Bonjoy, Reason: Tortology »

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3150
  • Karma: +174/-4
Interesting discussion. I think I fall somewhere between the two viewpoints. My main issue is the way Parks Vic are cynically scapegoating climbers as a way to give 'concessions' to traditional owners while blazing a massive new trail through the park to support increased tourism. Its unbelievably two faced. I have no beef with traditional owners at all for accepting the offer of increased/total control over their land, its probably what I would do.

The ultimate problem is that this policy will result in less access for everyone; climbers especially, but also bushwalkers and regular tourists. I have no problem with certain sacred places being out of bounds but huge swathes being off limits feels really wrong to me, especially when combined with climbers being disproportionately targeted compared to other user groups.

To me, this is a corporate power grab dressed up as a concession to indigenous people. I agree 1000% indigenous people need concessions, and lots of them, but I don't think this policy is good for anyone apart from Parks Vic in the long run. Does anyone seriously think Parks Vic or any government body have indigenous peoples interests at heart? Anyone who has spent any time whatsoever in Australia will know how deep seated racism is there and it goes right to the heart of Australia's institutions. They see this is a way of dealing with indigenous requests and bulldozering their way to a bigger profits, handily removing a user group who they see as freeloaders because they don't use their paid facilities.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5884
  • Karma: +639/-36
Hmm. I'm not sure the oppression suffered by the two parties here really bears comparison. Try looking at this from the perspective of an aboriginal. What would their priorities be? How would you convince them that climbers are the good guys they have lots in common with rather than just more bad white guys who feel entitled to trample freely across your heritage? One of the most central compenets of aboriginal culture is the way access to land was granted. There was never any blanket freedom to roam, it was based on a system of rights conferred by birth and subsequent negotiated reciprocal arrangements. The big difference with western modes is that this was not done by areas but by paths, but access was something earned.

I really think relying on your gut feelings of right and wrong here are a part of the problem not the solution. Those feelings are not relevant outside of the context they were developed in and It's that attitude that has got us where we are.

I have no knowledge of the issue other than reading the Vertical Life report linked above..
Genuine question - where are the Aboriginals' voices in this? I'm hearing a lot from Parks Victoria and nothing from aboriginals. Why do aboriginal people need Parks Victoria to speak for them in this case? Why could a dialogue not be set up between climbers groups and the Aboriginals, if respecting their culture and heritage is the issue here.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29623
  • Karma: +644/-12
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Was banning climbing Ayer's Rock / Uluru a precursor to this perhaps, the stick now being wielded "climbing on aboriginal sites is bad". I don't think so, but you can't help but wonder.

Cave Rock at Tahoe has now had climbing banned since the 1990s due to ancestral claims.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29623
  • Karma: +644/-12
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Has the impact on international tourism been largely ignored /overlooked?

Although there are other climbing places in Australia (although this could well set a precedent for anywhere not distinctly suburban) Arapiles and the Grampians are definitely the prize jewels for international climbers, and I doubt anyone would ever bother going on a climbing trip there without full access to both. Or are the numbers too low for them to care? A couple of thousand tourists a year coming to Oz for climbing? Or less than that?

r-man

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Glory lurks beneath the moss
  • Posts: 5035
  • Karma: +193/-3
    • LANCASHIRE BOULDERING GUIDEBOOK
Was banning climbing Ayer's Rock / Uluru a precursor to this perhaps, the stick now being wielded "climbing on aboriginal sites is bad". I don't think so, but you can't help but wonder.

Cave Rock at Tahoe has now had climbing banned since the 1990s due to ancestral claims.

Worth noting though, Gariwerd / The Grampians national park comprises an area of roughly 1,700 sq km. That makes it slightly bigger than the Peak District national park. They are not just talking about banning one or two sites, but the majority of climbing in that huge area.

It seems hard to understand* why such sweeping bans are needed, and why climbers in particular have been singled out. Bolts, chalk and vegetation damage seem a) easy to limit and control and b) miniscule in impact compared to the huge landscaping project currently being undertaken to bulldoze a new 160km trail through the park, complete with campsites and toilets along the way. More about that here: https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/projects/grampians-peaks-trail

*Unless of course Parks Vic is not being honest about the reasons for the bans.

Climbers clearly love and respect this place. Why can't they get together with the traditional owners and find common ground? Why don't Parks Vic allow climbers to participate in the discussions?

Anyway, on the off chance that Parks Vic will listen, here's the facebook link to a climbers' response which seeks to engage with the new management plan. It seems very reasonable, and all you need to do is add your name by leaving a comment.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/grampiansbouldering/permalink/3781042105313652


 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal