Uluru (Ayers Rock )
 

Overnight someone cut the climbing/support chains on Uluru in order to stop people climbing as it is against the wishes of the traditional owners. Now climbing cannot be done. Hooray !

Mmm ... I think the local Aboriginal owners' wishes should be respected too & I wouldn't climb Uluru either, but ...

I'm not really in favour of others taking matters into their own hands( assuming it wasn't the Aboriginal owners who cut the chain)

And, I'm wondering how many ( .... fill in your own adjective) climbers will see it as an additional challenge. My first thought was " we'll have more idiots falling off/getting into trouble & having to be rescued".

Time will tell, I suppose. Also whether the climbing chains will be repaired /replaced.

I've heard Bokhara that repairs can only be done with permission of the owners- an interesting dilemma

This is not something to cheer - it's just random lawlessness. And Bokhara is right, there will be numpties who want to climb regardless of the presence of fall-protection chains.

Look: the owners own the land and lease it back to the Aussie government. If they want to stop the climbing, that's a discussion they need to have with Canberra.

[I've been there twice and done the same thing: walked AROUND not on.]

sometimes BigRuss laws have to be broken to make a point so I couldn't disagree more re your comment about cheering.

And exactly what is this point that could only be made by breaking the law?

We are talking about the matter Dukey1 so maybe breaking the law can bring action, change opinions , right a wrong . Lots of incidents in history where law breakers have changed opinions and the law eg right to vote for women in UK , a recent "illegal" demonstration in Melbourne re the proposed border force stop and search .

OK, so cutting the chains made the point that the owners don't want people climbing. I gather somebody besides those owners decided those chains were necessary to help people climb and placed them there, is that correct? So is this actually an ownership issue?

I have no idea of the motive - I can't read minds .

Not sure how I feel about this specific action. I am curious though... along the lines of what Dukey was asking.

Something like this would usually be considered destruction of property, whether public or private. But since the owners were never in favour of this chain being in place, even if they didn't cut it, has a law actually been violated? Assuming then it's can't be declared destruction of private property and assuming no law said a chain MUST wrap over the rock, then what law was broken?

It's not really an ownership issue, Dukey, more a cultural & philosophical thing for the local Aboriginal owners.

I think this clip explains it quite well.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...-uluru/6603640

The chain was erected in the 60's & 70's - before Uluru was a National Park, or local Aboriginal ownership & their special relationship to this place acknowledged.

The chain cutting was apparently timed to commemorate the 1985 handing back ownership to the Anangu people.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-1...imbing/6891428

You might be interested in this note about the handing back of ownership.

http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/tourism/...ry/anangu.html

<<OK, so cutting the chains made the point that the owners don't want people climbing.>>

Not even that, Dukey - it could be that the owners didn't want the chains (which is unlikely since they've accepted their presence for DECADES) or that some activists who think they know better than the owners decided to cut those chains.

And in the '60s and '70s in Australia, there wasn't much intersection between the concepts of "the Aboriginals" and "rights" that the government acknowledged.

"Protester says he wanted to trigger debate"
says it all for me.
Whitlam government in 70s certainly acknowledge the rights of aboriginal people -Whitlam set up the Woodward inquiry albeit not much happened after that for a while.

It is not possible to stop people climbing the rock, even though the traditional owners would wish that people do not climb.

An admission - first time I visited, some 20 years ago, I did climb. Put that down to ignorance and cultural insensivity. On three subsequent visits, I was better informed, and now I would not dream of climbing.

A problem with the chain being cut is the risk of people still climbing, and falling to their death in the process. That is the worst possible outcome, both for the traditional owners and the ignorant climber.

<<"Protester says he wanted to trigger debate"
says it all for me.>>

Yeah, good going. Like the debate hasn't been chattering onward for 30 years.

Numpty.

The traditional owners have announced they will allow the repair of the chain & re-opening of the climb.

A spokesperson for the National Park & Anangu owners said that if & when they decide to close the climb, it will be done in a considered & orderly manner.

<<that some activists who think they know better than the owners decided to cut those chains. >>

Personally, I think this is pretty close to the reality.
I can't believe that a member of the Anangu people would set one foot on Uluru to do that. My experience out there has always been a really soft sell from the local tribe - always a gentle explanation from the Rangers that the Anangu would prefer it if you didn't but would never stop you either.

I've often pondered actually, whether the Anangu would close the walk but I can't see it happening any time soon.

I do wish people would respect their wishes.