Ayers Rock (Uluru): Worth the Trip?
 

My spouse and I are planning a trip to Australia in August or September of 2012. I think Ayers Rock (Uluru) is a "not-to-be-missed" attraction, but my spouse isn't so sure (a mutual friend didn't particularly enjoy it). Who loves this location? Who didn't think it was worth the time and expense? Thanks in advance for your opinions!

Full disclosure: I have not been to Uluru.

But perhaps the questions I ask myself in general, when making up my mind to see something, might help you in your decision.

- RISK: What's your tolerance for it? If you spend on the airfare and it wasn't quite what you expected, will you be glad you went anyway, or will you be wishing you'd reserved the cash to enrich some other aspect of the trip? This is a very individual decision, and one that only you are likely able to make.

- Comfort: Will you be bothered by extremes of heat, perhaps having to wear a anti-fly hat -- or can you ignore these things if you are sufficiently fascinated by what you discover?

- Uniqueness appreciator or pragmatist: Would you be content to substitute some other example of interesting geological formation in Australia, or perhaps aboriginal art in a museum - or is it the chance to see the art in situ that grabs you? Perhaps it is the mysterious aspect of this one that attracts you, so that no other would substitute?

- Again, you've got to be the one to decide, I think.

I have been to Uluru twice (once for myself, once to accompany my M-I-L). I think Suexxyy points out some important things to consider, particularly since you will always find people who love Uluru and others that don't. It's a very individual decision you'll have to make.

One thing that Sue mentions won't really be an issue in August/September--the comfort factor. You will not be dealing with extreme heat at that time of year and I don't think that flies will be a problem either then.

As you are a wildlife lover then go. Be prepared to work for the animals in the early morning and late afternoon when most a retiring for a beer. The light is great then too.

Here is a link to my trip report and further down you'll see links to my pictures and the websites of guides in the area, though mostly Alice Springs based. As there have been three good seasons in a row the wildlife numbers are high at the moment and if it dries out a bit they will all concentrate where the water is. This will make it even better for you.

"Be prepared to work for the animals in the early morning and late afternoon when most a retiring for a beer. "

Alan, can you please tell us which animals retire for a beer in late afternoon, and which pubs they are likely to go to? Do they let you take photos if you buy them a drink?

Worth it to visit Ayers Rock alone on a whirlwind one or two night visit? - guestionable. Worth it to visit Central Australia for several days, taking in more of the sights (the Olgas, Kings Canyon, the gorges of the MacDonnell Ranges, Palm Valley, etc)? Absolutely. It is a beautiful and unique part of the world. I've been a couple of times and loved it.

I concur with RalphR - not a one or two night visit. My DH and I went there July 2010. We spent 5 days in Alice Springs then 2 nights - one full day, 2 half days - at Ayers Rock, much of which was spent at Uluru and Kata Tjuta. Before we went I booked tours for 2 sunsets and 1 sunrise. I recommend doing this as both nights were incredibly different with the lights playing over Uluru. The weather for the sunrise was a little overcast but nevertheless being there was great and the following tour DH said was very interesting. Unfortunately I was unable to participate in both tours I had booked as I damaged my knee the day we arrived and was not able to walk very well.
If you want to read my report of Alice and Uluru, click on my name and look for Alice Springs and Uluru July 2010. You may need to search the site for it.
July 2011 DH and I returned to Alice Springs and visited Palm Valley, Chambers Pillar and Rainbow Valley, Kings Canyon, and Trephina Gorge and Arltunga in The East MacDonnells. Reports on these parts of our trip will be posted early this week. Much as we wanted to return to Uluru last year we just did not have the time available, but hopefully will return to Alice Springs and also Uluru in the near future.
Dot

A glimpse will have you hooked. Any anount of time there is well worth the effort!

It is stunning on a whole range of levels. Do climb it and explore it to its fullest. We spent five hours on the top and could easily spend the same ampount of time again. Different parts of the rock make different sounds when you walk it. The mini forest and the rock pools are brilliant to explore and the boulders. Take plenty of water and remember there are only two toilets in the park.

Then you have the base walk and the Olgas to explore. You can also explore the Aborinal cultural stuff and do a guided walk if that is your thing. Apparently they are quite good but we didn't do any.(We have no interest in doing such cultural things in our travels no matter where we go. We avoid people as much as wel can.)

Be sure to go to the information centre in the resort as it has a great display on the geology and desert, sadly lacking in the information centre actually in the park that only has the aboriginal views.

The average tourist spends 1.6 days at Ayers rock if that is any guide for you.

How sad to see that peterSale say " we have no interest in doing such cultural things when we travel". Perhaps if he had done so at Ayers rock he would have learned that the Aborignial people who own the land, request that no one climb the rock because of its spiritual significance to them. It is disrespectful to do so.

Viewing a billion stars in the night sky around Ayers Rock (Uluru) on a cloudless night made the trip there PRICELESS for us. So, is it worth it? We say definitely, YES.

That said, the points raised by Sue_xx_yy should be carefully considered to determine if the trip there is "worth it" to YOU.

I seem to have not hit 'submit' when adding the link which I forgot in the past.

http://www.fodors.com/community/aust...-australia.cfm

Links to the photos are about four posts down and links to other sites of Central Australian interest are a bit further down the thread.

eliztravels, you win! Sorry poor writing on my part. However yes the animals of the centre will usually pose for pictures if you buy them a drink.

peterSale is quite knowledgeable about geology and seems to like taking an intellectual approach to his travels. He is not without an affective domain as demonstrated by, "A glimpse will have you hooked," and "It is stunning on a whole range of levels."

By coincidence the add showing below this as I type is one with a picture of Kata Tjuta and the Valley of the Winds.

It is not illegal to climb the rock. However I would encourage all tourists everywhere to be sensitive to the feelings of their hosts.

eliztravels - each to their own. I find it sad when people don't understand the travel desires of others. As said previously, we avoid people and cultures as they are only of a passing interest to us. I fully understand that to others meeting people and exploring different cultures is the highlight of their trip. Diferent strokes for different folks. Not sad, just different.

I did quite a bit of research prior to and after going to the rock. The whole ownership idea of what tribe "owns" it is very murky and very political. It would behove anyone to do the same before setting their opinions in stone (pun intended). In brief - the tribe that says they own it "stole" it and there are no fully initiated males left to carry on the traditions and ceremonies associated with the rock's summit. I also spoke to about fifty people (a rare thing for me to do) on the rock as well to get their opinions of why they climbed it. Each had their own story and reason. None were outright disrespectful of the Aborigines but wanted to be able to share the full experience of the rock in all its grandeur.

We purposely went so we could climb it before the bans (requests) become permanent. I do believe that the best part of the rock is at the top and that requesting (banning - within ten years according to the management plan) people not to climb denies people one of the most brilliant experiences of geology in the world.

There is a brilliant video about the half dome at Yosemite NP where the ranger uses the term "Rocks with Charisma" (go to the NP website to view it).

Ayers Rock certainly has charisma!

Thanks Alan for the support, I know you will understand the flutter in the heart of exploring such things, and that it can be done with respect. NOTHING beats the feeling of wandering around on a rock. Ayers Rock; The Olgas; Hyden Rock The Nut; Murphies Hay Stacks; Canal Rocks just to name a few. This is the main reason we travel.

fluffnfold - If you like Rocks with Charisma, then this is the place for you. The only question is do you have the money to do it?

This applies to any travel destination. Do you have the money and the time? All else doesn't matter. It is your holiday. It baffles (saddens) me when people give up a travel destination because it is "too far" or "too expensive". If it is "not-to-be-missed" then don't miss it! Leave your spouse behind for a couple of days if you must. But go and see what turns you on. You will not regret going. You will always regret not going.

... the path less travelled...

Do allow a half day at least for the Olgas as well. It is much quieter than the Rock and spectacular in their own way. The valley of the winds walk is not nearly as hard as they make it out to be. A short rock scramble and some small hills. Take plenty of water. There are some tanks to top up your supply but don't rely on them.

ENJOY.

Peter, can you direct me to a place to research that stealing of Uluru? When there in 1981 and again a year and a bit ago (not right at Uluru but to the south) I met a number of old men carrying law and lore.

Would you apply aboriginal law to the ownership argument or British common law?

Alan, below is the webpage. I have tried to track down the actual book but to no avail. I also have a book on Ayers rock and its significance to the aborigines written in 1965 and amended in 1977 by Charles P. Mountford. He lived with and studied the aborigines before it became trendy. He states that at that time there was only one fully initiated man left.
(if you want to borrow the book email me at [email protected])

http://outbackvoices.com/book-review...wns-ayres-rock

As to ownership and the law, I go with Crocodile Dundee. "It is a bit like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog." It will be there long after we go. Personally, I don't think anyone should "own" it. Like all natural features it should be shared and well managed for all to enjoy.

I find it tasteless that it is largely forgotten that it was originally preserved as a world heritage site for its geology ten years before the cultural reason was added.

It offends me that any natural feature requires special permission to photograph it for commerical purposes and that some parts are totally banned from photography at all. Fair enough if it is to be a long term movie project or some such that will spoil the tranquility for others.

I would like to see it better managed and less divisive. I won't hold my breath though.

Thanks for your response, Peter. Perhaps I was a little quick to judgement.

No worries. Everyone travels for different reasons. It would be a dull world if we were all the same.

Peter, you are lucky if in your state one does not need permission to film commercially in national parks. I have to carry my permits with me when I take tourists into ours. I have no problem with paying a fees for entry but my commercial permits cost me the same as a big operator taking 100 plus people a day for each day of the year. They pay for each person too, as I do, but many foreign operators work without permits and if caught they send a different guide next time!

I think I've seen Mountford in my father's library and if not I'll try first to borrow it from the library.

I assume there are fees for commercial filming in our National Parks. I just find it offensive that something the "belongs to the people" is used as a money maker by the government. At least our government has stopped charging entry fees into the parks.

I think that showing respect to inhabitants is an important part of travel – even if one is not interested in the local culture.

Australian aboriginals generally don’t like images of their dead being shown – so photographs will sometimes be obscured, or a TV program will have a warning “This program shows images of deceased people, which may offend some viewers”.

It is the same at Ularu – there are areas at the base of the rock that are regarded as sacred. There is a low barrier – you could easily step over it. And there are signs stating that the area is sacred and that photographs should not be taken. It is not policed at all, though. It is a request really, and it is polite to comply.

I think that having an appreciation of the cultures that one encounters when travelling yields a richer experience.

The Wailing Wall (apologies for not knowing the correct name) in Jerusalem is sacred – but some people might think it would make a great rock climbing wall. But don’t exercise on someone else’s sacred place – that is being rude.

When travelling in Europe, one often sees signs saying that photography is forbidden, and not just in churches. Photography is not allowed in Palladio’s theatre, in Vicenza. It is polite to comply.

Peter, the only place I can find any reference to that book is in the book review you listed. IF you spell the place correctly there is not a single reference on the web and my friend who deals in second hand books can find no mention of it anywhere.

With regards to ownership and payments for access, would you not pay to see the Green River fossil deposits, Flinders Ranges and the famous Solnhofen and Holzmaden quarries?

Funny thing is happening up this way. There is a group of people very concerned about the perceived loss of property rights. It is exactly this same group that welcomed Tim Fisher's "bucket loads of extinguishment" with open arms but said it did not go far enough. This was despite leaseholders gaining further rights and providing barriers to orderly development on those lands which are owned by us all and held by the crown. Of course, they would say that they are not racist.

If one starts from the premise that the invasion of Australia brought British common law then that can only be overridden by statute and that law must abide by the constitution which prohibits arbitrary seizure and requires just compensation.

Meant to add that Peter B English has no other record on the web under that name either.

How could one visiting 'the rock' not be aware that it is a geological feature. Is it that most people do not know that this was recognised first as a reason for nomination to the World Heritage List that bothers you? What about the listing of the Wet Tropics where the geology was ignored?

Interesting turn this thread has taken.

AlanJG and PeterSale, your discussion has led me to wonder: what constitutes arbitrary seizure? Recently in my own domaine, the government expropriated land because it was deemed to be in the common interest. (Example: neighbours not far away had to sell part of their land to allow for road widening. They raised strenuous objections, but were overruled.) Expropriation does not mean theft, since compensation is given, but if one did not wish to sell, or otherwise trade access rights to the property for cash, it still ends up being controversial compensation.

Peter Sale raises an interesting issue: where 'fair market value' can't be assessed easily - and that is probably true of geological features - what is just compensation? And who should be deemed to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of any given group - or groups, if more than one feels they have title? What to do, when no deeds exist?

Peter Aus suggest the Wailing Wallis similar to Uluru since both are places sacred to given people. Should size, though, be taken into consideration? And what about graveyards - these are sacred places, yet precedent exists for moving graves to another site, if the original impedes something, again supposedly in the public interest.

The constitution is very cleverly worded. By using the term "just terms" it leaves it open to each generation to decide. A decision should be based on what society as a whole would consider "just". No descision will please everyone. This is part of living in a democracy.

There are currently major roadworks outside our house (it is shaing as I write) and have been for the past three months and will continue for another six at least, as the highway is widened. When it is finished we will have to drive an extra 250m and then do a U-turn to get to our house. Should we and our neighbours be compensated for this? If so how much? Should we have been relocated for the duration? NO. It is part of living in democracy and putting up with inconvenience for the greater good.

We need to be less selfish as individuls and as interest groups and be more community minded. What is good for the WHOLE community? What is a suitable compromise?

It is a specious argument to compare Ayers Rock (or any other natural feature) with a temple wall, cathedral etc.

The aborigines have simply made up stories to suit a physical feature. They have different names and stories for the constellations. Should they have rights over these as well?

A Temple on the other hand has been made for a specific religious purpose. The two are totally different.

Zealots of any type are dangerous. There was a fight recently in the Bethlehem Church of the nativity between different branches of the Christian Church. Let alone the fighting in Israel between religions. It is all silly and beggars belief. They should share like good children.

I have no problem with the aborigines using Ayers Rock for their beliefs, nor do I have a problem with the recent stripper, or Sam Newman hitting a golf ball or someone walking its length and breadth. You can sacrifice a goat up there for all I care. All I ask is that everyone be treated equally. No single interest should dominate, other than sound environmental management.

If you swap one group for another and it sounds absurd/racist/sexiest then the first one was also. I am sure no one would want McAyersRock or Trump Olgas. We need to get rid of the politics, pure and simple.

As Ayers Rock is a World Heritage area it should be managed like all world heritage areas should be in a way that allows all people to see and enjoy it in their own way as long as it does not cause damage.


As to paying to see such things. I have and will pay. I don't begrudge it if I know it is going directly to the maintenance and preservation of the sight (and will often give a donation as well). I do begrudge it if it is just a commercial thing or going into consolidated revenue.

However, I believe that such significant things should be preserved in National Parks or similar for the enjoyment of all and not just those who can afford it and not to the commercial benefit of individuals or companies.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Hi Peter, thanks for taking the time to reply. (Sorry OP, didn't mean to disrupt your thread, I suppose ideally we should move this tangential discussion to its own thread.)

I assumed that the claim of the aboriginals to Uluru was a land claim, if only on the lands over which one must travel to access the site. Elsewhere, land has been expropriated to create national parks, so if I've followed what you are saying, PeterSale, you believe Uluru/Ayres should fall under this category, that of national park. As it is, I had the impression that some kind of agreement had been reached so as to permit access to the site (since people obviously visit it); if I've followed this discussion, the controversy seems to be about whether certain exclusive access (or at least, a certain degree of restricted access to non-aboriginals), based on cultural claims, is reasonable. You seem to be saying, no, that universal access is the only kind reasonable in a national park.

Re 'naming' of places/making up stories: many places that are considered sacred, manmade or natural, are sacred because of the fact that they have been formally named, formally designated. (In various Chhristian denominations, a church is not just built, it has to be formally consecrated to be considered a church.) The Christian religion was wise enough to foresee the possible requirement for formally 'deregistering' a place as sacred, as when a church is deconsecrated and the building then made available to other purposes. (I presume a similar ritual takes place when a graveyard has to be moved.)

So possibly your main concern is with the permanent classification of a site, manmade or natural, as sacred, with no allowance for flexibility in the face of either social change, or even natural disaster (e.g., an earthquake rendering the rock a heap o' dust.)

Basically Yes. If it is a National Park/World Heritage Area then it should be managed as such. If it is "Native Land", it should be named and managed as such.

Kakadu I think is in the same category in that it is called a National Park but has different mangagment rules.

This goes for anywhere in the world.

Physical features are different to man made things. Man made were made for a purpose and that purpose obviously has certain inherent rights.

I am sure people would not approve if Ayers Rock was controlled by a hang gliding club and only hang gliders could use it and that hang gliding was seen as the most important aspect of the Rock. I am equally sure that if it was, the hang gliding club would be able to come to some compromise with other users.

I just think such things should be shared. No Politics. No Bigotry.

Should rock climber be allowed to climb the wailing wall?
Who does it belong to. Who should it belong to? Who should judge such a thing?