Wouldn't the sun rays hit different aspects of the rock at different times of the year? It would be be at one extreme at this time of the year. Maybe the viewing place was chosen to give the best average?

I have no real objection to Barnett's article but as a side comment, we should note that Alizee Sery has made herself considerably more marketable. Before she was just another French girl with an embarrassing tendency to strip down to her swim wear in odd places, now she is one who has managed to spark public outrage. She may benefit from the Paris Hilton effect. Someone with no talent or marketable skills apart from looking good in grainy videos can suddenly demand appearence money, and get it.
The best way to punish Sery for her transgressions would have been to ignore her.
Now everyone desperate for the public spotlight will rush to take their gear off on the rock.

Very quickly in response to Dan Fitzgerald before his comment is "forgotten" amongst newer arrivals.

Dan, the new viewing area (Talinguru Nyakunytjaku) is most certainly not the "best average" of lighting conditions for sunrise at Uluru. And this is because the new viewing area is on the south-east side of Uluru. While at the height of summer this side of the Rock will receive a considerable amount of direct light at sunrise, this is not the peak visiting time for tourists and especially not for Australian travellers who like going here during our winter months.

However on the other side of the Rock (the north-east side of Uluru), there was - and still is - direct sunlight hitting the rock surface all through the year at sunrise. Even in mid-summer when the light is more angled than in winter. And that is where the old sunrise viewing area was located.

Given that Uluru is 348 metres high you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that for much of the year Uluru will actually cast shadows across its south-east flank - which is what you see from Talinguru Nyakunytjaku. And that's because Uluru, like the rest of Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere and additionally is south of the Tropic of Capricorn.

A few years back before my partner and I renovated our house, we had an architect do some shadow diagrams for our next-door neighbour who was concerned that our extension would cast shadows over their backyard in winter. As it turns out there was going to be very little shadowing over their backyard from our proposed extension, as almost all the shadowing was caused by their own house shadowing their backyard in winter. So we went ahead with our extension and have had no problems with that neighbour.

It is a great pity that Parks Australia could not avail themselves of a similar professional who could have done shadow diagrams for them before they committed $21 million of taxpayers' money on a viewing area that is fourth-rate at best to see the sunrise.

- Ross Barnett

How ironic that the very same people whose ancestors spent 40,000
years wandering naked around the desert should object to a semi-naked
Frenchwoman. Must be the sinister subliminal influence of the evil
puritans who invaded their country.
Yes, I think we can blame this one on whitey too.

Lonely Planet needs a special travel warning on political correctness when visiting Australia.

Maybe if all visitors could sign general apologies on entry. Oh, and ban those attractive young French girls from entry lest they cause affront to the women's movement over body image as well. Maybe a 'minimum size' gate to ensure the correct 'voluptuousness' of women visiting Oz. Send the undersized straight back.

Can Kevin 07 be recalled so both he and Kate Ellis (might as well be proactive) can do a duet apology from the Edsel viewing platform? There just has to be some compo for this slight.

Aboirigines demanding respect for their culture.Hmm...mmm!
Maybe for the ROCK and other land forms and water ways.
Come to the cities and suburbs and see what respect there is for them and more importantly, what respect they have for themselves.

socratease

1. I actually sent back a couple of pieces of rock I took from Uluru many years ago - with photo so owners could replace from where I took the rusty red rocks,

2. No one has stripped on the Rock before? Find this hard to believe. I was there during July, a bit chilly even though it was very sunny, but feel like I missed an opportunity - it is an invigorating place. Did run down the side on my return - that was fantastic!

Ross, agree with you:

>> It is a great pity that Parks Australia could not avail themselves of a similar professional who could have done shadow diagrams for them before they committed $21 million of taxpayers' money on a viewing area that is fourth-rate at best to see the sunrise. <<

Now that's a disgrace.

Do you think that it would be a bit rude for a girl to strip & do a little dance at the altar of Westminster Abbey? How long would she survive at Mecca?

I was told by a ranger at Uluru years ago that the Aborigines do not have any problem with
people climbing at all, the problem is that because they believe in and are very scared of spirits or ghosts , when a tourist dies on the climb as many have it means their spirit may still be hanging around .
I personally object to people who defecate and pollute the place when they climb it as many do.
As for the French girl, sounds a little like with are transferring the anti sexual attitudes of conservative Muslims and Christians onto Aborigines. Are most Aborigines truly offended by what happened ? can I see a poll on that one, As for deporting her I thought thats what Totalitarian countries did.

Yawn! Next..........your human. lol. OH, how I love the minds of not the minds.

Again!...........Next. As human-beings...lol......and i will leave you with just a thought in-time......... David will love this........If you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others.

This post must be-long in the section of non humans.

Smile.

TT

So sad, just like other articles that involve Aborigines, the racists jump out quickly to take whichever side opposite for some reason on principal.

But first, a reply to Ross.

1- the misplacement of the platform is a disgrace as far as planning goes. Either they could have asked the hundreds of people who work around there where the shadows actually lie if they could have installed it, or they simply could have NOT spent the money at all.

2- Closing the climb? ABSOLUTELY. Only if it is clear that the landholders don't mind it being open and are under no outside pressure that it should remain open, entirely at their own discretion.

I'm also amazed at all the analogies people are making that are so bad they would be better placed in a comedy than a political discussion. The two that stick out are:
-Why respect Uluru when the Abos in the city are 'disrespectful'? (after all, they can't possibly be completely different people- you know, with over 300 different Aboriginal nationalities on this continent and such.
-But people got naked in front of *insert non-sacred commercial tourist landmark like Opera House* and nobody cared! A better example would be if there were a nun's convent built on the hill where Jesus was crucified with an in-built cemetery to fallen diggers, and I wanted to climb on top of the gravestones and dance naked on top- THAT would be a more sensible comparison because that's the precise nature of the rock to the landholders.

What's scary is that the people who are so angry about it would try very hard to sabotage even a simple proposal that doesn't bother any of us on a matter of respect, seemingly out of pure spite.
I seriously doubt Americans or Canadians start boiling with rage whenever any native lobbyists ask for anything like this.

I have personally spoken to a number of full blooded aboriginals who have climbed Ayers rock. They have no problem with it. It is more likely the earth worshiping whites and aboriginal industry who keeps coming out with this crap.

I think that most of the problems surrounding the climbing or otherwise of Uluru would disappear if the Anangu owners simply started charging a fee for the privilege of climbing on their rock.

At, say, $50 a pop it could be a self-regulating, nice little earner for the community. I imagine that anybody who'd be willing to pay $50 to climb Uluru would be inclined to respect it.

The viewing platform sounds like a total debacle.

CJ

I think your idea is brilliant - $50 it is enough to prevent the hoon contingent (well mostly) and having done the climb it is well worth it. My experience at Uluru can only be described as numinous (I think there is some pagan in my ancestry) and a well remembered highlight of my life.

Cheers

Unfortunately, the noble savage myth has a good foothold at OLO. Most likely, people go and see a tourist dancing troupe of aborigines or discuss aboriginal stuff in a trendy cafe with other beard twitchers with cardigans, and then make a heap of noise about how wonderful black people are and how crap white people are.

2 stories I heard from people visiting Ayers rock, an older white woman who wasnt about to climb it anyway saying they should ban climbing out of respect, and an aboriginal woman of a similar vintage saying the cost was way too high and unjustified.

It still seems we miss the point, that people are only human. You could give me Ayers rock, and I'd probably do the exact same thing; make a few bucks from it. I could argue that making a few bucks is traditional practice for white folks.

The viewing platform fiasco is typical of any government scheme, often the funding just has to be spent on any old thing rather than give said funds back. It also inflates the operational budget, when you have to doze a platform each year and cobble another together at short notice.

Such an attraction should belong to all Australians, and be preserved for the future. It does not, and the present holders of tenure dont tend to worry about the future.

Interesting.
Im off to dance around naked on the roof of the local church.
Whats the difference?

First PatTheBogun's post then mikk's, now I need a sponge to wipe the keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee. Very funny and good points too.

The difference, I suspect, will escape you. By all means dance naked at every chance, but I suspect workcover would want decent scaffolding at least a metre all round the edge of the roof. Intoxication, darkness, and rain make church roof dancing a dangerous business- persistence will be the key.
The rock may be an inspiration for worship of one kind or another, but the community right next to Ayers rock demonstrates this environmental concern is selective to say the least.
If the young lady was naked amongst the rock paintings in Kakadu or invading a ceremony and streaking naked, that would be poor form. This is simply a beat-up about a tourist attraction, most likely they are trying to scam some extra photo fees or something.

It's amazing- the issue should be simple- what do the LOCALS think?

If THEY say they don't want people to climb it, then respect it- if they say they don't care, then its all good. So long as we can be certain that no outside bodies are forcing this hand, that's all it should be.

I really don't get why this issue needs to be any more complicated than that.
Or, for that matter, what some posters THINK the motion is coming from- because if we simply followed this principal, those factors wouldn't matter anyway.

(of course, it leaves out a lot of nonsense grounds to justify various attitudes expressed here).

Stripping is stripping...this girl was dressed in a bikini and cowboy boots which would have made a fantastic tourism feature page for both the girl and Australia. The Rock belongs to every Australian and enjoyed by visitors who may wish to dance or dress in a bikini enjoying the exhilarating experience. Half her luck getting there from overseas when I have been waiting for the opportunity to travel around the Northern Territory camping and fishing LOL

'Interesting.
Im off to dance around naked on the roof of the local church.
Whats the difference?'

Why not do it for the environment along with the many other earth worshipers who feel the need?

The analogy with church's misses the churches long term hang up's about the human body. Others might have a better understanding of this but as far as I'm aware indigenous cultures tend not to share those hang up's so a bikini is hardly likely to outrage on it's own.

Maybe down to the cathedral and sing a rock song.

If the suggestion that Parks Australia and others are using the pretense of traditional owners wishes to push their own agenda's without a clear understanding of the traditional owners wishes then that where the real offense lies.

R0bert

At least stripping is "secret woman's business" with foundation in fact - not deception.
Amazing how politically correct words like "sacred" shuts down cranial neurons.
What next - pretending indigenous art isn't a scam?

Robert states:

>> If the suggestion that Parks Australia and others are using the pretense of traditional owners wishes to push their own agenda's without a clear understanding of the traditional owners wishes then that where the real offense lies. <<

King Hazza:

>> It's amazing- the issue should be simple- what do the LOCALS think? <<

Bleeding obvious, really.

Thanks guys.

>> Do you think that it would be a bit rude for a girl to strip & do a little dance at the altar of Westminster Abbey? How long would she survive at Mecca? << (Gorufus, Friday, 2 July 2010 8:10:29 PM)

In response to Gorofus – which I guess is directed at me. Firstly, that is not really the issue here and secondly as a secular person I take the whole notion of “respecting” sacred sites of any persuasion with a hefty grain of salt.

Additionally, is the top of Uluru comparable to the altar of Westminster Abbey? This is what Thomas Keneally had to say in 1983 in his book, Outback.

“In 1963 the Yankuntjatjara and Pitjantjatjara elders permitted a chain to be installed along Webo (tail), for Webo - although a site of significance - is not a major Dreaming site.”

His observation twenty years after the climbing chain was put in place, would seem to be consistent with what other observers told of the traditional owners’ attitude to the Climb at that stage. The push against the Climb seems to have come largely from Tony Tjamiwa who was not born and raised at Uluru but hailed from Ernabella (now Pukatja) in northern South Australia.

Yet as Keneally also noted, the closer you were born to Uluru the more authority you would have in matters to do with the Rock and its spirituality. I have often wondered whether many of Tjamiwa's pronouncements were made by him to assert his authority over those who traditionally would have had a greater say in affairs at Uluru.

As for the idea that Alizee Sery would not survive long at Mecca; are you unaware that non-Muslims aren't even allowed to go to Mecca? It is against the law in Saudi Arabia – that bastion of religious freedom ... NOT.

Lastly, there has been no physical damage done by Sery to Uluru. But dancing on the altar at Westminster Abbey would most likely damage it. But if she danced and stripped in the aisles I would not be concerned.

- Ross Barnett

Indeed Severin- sadly most people are skipping past what DO the locals think, but the arguers are instead telling them what they should be thinking this way because of (insert lazily assumed prejudicial assumption)
I keep asking this question but they refuse to answer.

Also, I should point out that the Church has changed its dress code expectations considerably- men are no longer encouraged to walk into one wearing a skirt, or short-legged pants, and sandals, like the good ol days.
Am I getting my point through yet to the others?

Also, WAU- don't be so fast to declare the rock 'everyone's as we didn't exactly acquire it voluntarily.
In this case, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the one concession and respect the locals request that you do not climb it, just to be fair and balanced.

Sadly Severin, I think there is too strong an angry, bitter reverse anti-guilt psychology in many of the posters where a simple issue of respect gets distorted into an embittered rage to offset some kind of historical blame OFF themselves, which really is NOT what this is about (sadly I think aside from us two, there aren't many else who get this).

Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer "If you cannot evaluate an Aboriginal issue without tying it to the 'black armband' discourse, please don't bother posting, grownups are having a conversation'

I'll prove it- somebody will reply to me stating that it's not their fault, and prove that they're not getting the issue is not about 'guilt' at all.

Two people (CJ Morgan and Severin) have mentioned the idea of charging people to climb the Rock. There already is a substantial $25 per head charge to enter the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. This charge applies to everyone aged 16 and over. And this charge is regarded by many people as the fee that they pay to climb Uluru.

Along with Kakadu National Park – where a $25 entry fee was re-introduced by the Minister for Burning Batts, Peter Garrett, on April 1st – the national park at Uluru has the most expensive entry fees of any mainland national park in Australia. The $25 entry fee at Uluru is only for three days and would cost a couple who might be travelling with a 16-year old child, $75 just to visit the national park.

Compare that to the situation in New Zealand or Queensland for instance, where all national park entry is free. Even in the United States an annual pass to visit all of the American national parks (Acadia, Badlands, Denali, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Isle Royale, Olympic, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, etc, etc.) is only $80 and that covers an entire vehicle not a single person.

- Ross Barnett

Ross

Food for thought regarding your examples of park fees. My concern is at a specific level, rather than a general one.

Uluru is a very small part of the NT parks. It is subjected to more foot traffic than any other portion. I am guilty of taking a couple of rocks from its surface. There is nothing else quite like it anywhere and is deserving of extra protection. While it is more vulnerable to damage it is also much easier to monitor than many other landscape features. I think an extra fee can be administered both for the preservation of the Rock and for the benefit of the local people.

BTW

Totally agree with you on the viewing platform - that has to be a rort of some kind.

PS

Stripping is not an environmental hazard. Bare feet cause far less damage than hiking boots. I'm guessing the locals have less concern with nudity than a few Christians.

:)

As with all religions, *first* prove they are probably true (in the sense of electrons and viruses, which we cannot see either) and *then* we will consider it.

Rusty

Also, WAU- don't be so fast to declare the rock 'everyone's as we didn't exactly acquire it voluntarily.
In this case, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the one concession and respect the locals request that you do not climb it, just to be fair and balanced.

True King Hazza; thanks.

'Interesting.
I'm off to dance around naked on the roof of the local church.
Whats the difference?'

Why not do it for the environment along with the many other earth worshipers who feel the need?
Posted by runner, Sunday, 4 July 2010 12:07:45 AM

Runner! Mate I would pay a hundred bucks just to see you do that.lol..............But on second thoughts, I would definitely pay you not to do it:( And by the way, we earth worshipers have only one real concern, and that's saving your ares, cause I don't see any GOD doing jack-sh@t about any-thing other than make money and overpopulate the planet. As for Uluru, In ten million years, there wont be any rock there at all.

But seriously, The indigenous people have won the right it court their right to the rock ( land rights ) and you runner can go to the middle-east and make your religious pro-test in what-ever manner you wish. Didn't the Christians teach the indigenous people the word of god?
And I wonder where they got the idea to charge a fee from?

Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander.

And sorry once again. Their religion is some 60.000 YEARS OLDER THAN YOURS.

But how ever you humans make your money, First in first serve.

TTM.

This has made Alizee Sery an instant celebrity, and she didn't even have to release a sex tape.

I visited, I climbed.
When I asked why the local tribe didn't like it I got a reply along the lines of "it is traditional that only wise men climb it. These days we all do, but some of us just want the white man to respect something of ours". I read this as: "some of us like to utilise the little power we have over you", however others were quite respectful of our right to climb a part of our country. Some Aboriginals actually get that as Australians this is all our land, and the land is for all. We are not restrained to a small defensible territory as men on foot are. Some of the Aboriginals have modernised their world-view to take this into account.
When we asked if we could parachute onto the rock, or off the rock, or near the rock we were told "no way". Again "why?" was along the lines of "it is disrespectful to have frivolous fun near the rock as it is sacred." This explains the stripper reaction I guess.
But we have folks like this too, who insist that any "frivolous" fun is automatically offensive to the "sacred". These folks are called "wowsers" or "pruitans" and are rightfully marginalised in society these days due to the damage they do. (even Jesus warns against this behaviour!) These folks are certainly taken too seriously by many. Being Aboriginal makes one no less of a meddling fool.
Haven spoken to a range of Aboriginals I choose to treat them as I do the other citizens of Earth...and I ignore the wowsers, puritans and the other runner like personalities that would constantly deride and treat others with disdain.
I too was born here, I too have "traditional culture" and have developed an attachment to "my land". As another poster mentioned, it is part of my culture to climb mountains, cliffs, trees and to swim lakes, rivers and oceans. Many Aboriginals respect this, and some don't.

Ozandy,

That's an interesting concept, that every bit of Australia is fair game for every Australian. Where do you live - I'll bring a mob of my fellow-yahoos around to tramp through your back garden next weekend :) One thing - do you have a barbecue ? Beauty !

Joe

LoudMouth: So Who's backyard is Ularu? I thought it was a national monument!
Are you suggesting that Kakadu and Mt Razorback are sold to private interests, or perhaps you have taken my comments a tad too far?

I grew up with "all Australia for all Australians" meaning all races are *equal*. Being told I'm not wise enough, old enough, manly enough or lets be honest..aboriginal enough to climb a rock is against my culture and my values. I have found that many Australians, some of which are aboriginal agree with this point. "Special consideration" for a particular race has a name...racism. It's a pity we have lost sight of that.

Lets be sensible: Private property is one thing, public assets, nature, is quite another.

Ozandy seems to be unaware that Uluru is owned by the Anangu people, and leased back to the Commonwealth for 99 years. Therefore, it's not a public asset as such, but rather the general public only have access to it until the lease expires or is renegotiated.

Ozandy,

As CJ notes, Uluru has been recognised as the exclusive property of the people of the area, the traditional owners of the entire area, who have leased it back to the CCNT. You are free to use it on their terms, much as you are free to make use of St Peter's Cathedral or the Opera House or the house next door - on the owners' terms.

Personally, I am uneasy with anybody climbing Uluru, even if the owners approve - just pay your $ 25 and drive or walk around it, that should be enough. Enjoy it for what it is, a place of beauty and grandeur, not as some sort of wild place to conquer.

Joe

Fair enough.
I guess I have a problem with this "ownership", much as I'd have a problem with someone "owning" Sydney Harbour or Kakadu.
In the legal sense then I guess it *is* private property. Now we just need to decide which Aboriginal people to listen to...
I still reckon someone would get upset no matter what, and their targets are often too trivial to take too seriously!

[Deleted and poster suspended for one month.]

Last time I was there ,about 2003 the "Please don't climb" Sign was not big enough or convincing enough .

CJ -$50.00 to climb Uluru sounds good - it may steady the climbers up a bit but not enough in my book .

What about $100.00 plus a 1 hour Cultural Session [Free]- and then you pay your money if you want to to proceed .

But really, it is simply poor form and insensitive to Climb - it's obvious.

However around here, the Bogans,the rednecks and a fair few well heeled others still roll their eyes when it is suggested it is inappropriate and insensitive to climb and it is their Religious Monument - not ours.

Old Attitudes die hard,particularly in the bush.

Uluru may be an important climb for some non Indigenous Bogans and Rednecks or even uninformed Travellers, but it is definitely Not a Religious Icon in the Indigenous sense and thus the Traditional Owners wishes should be respected .

TTM,

Perhaps you could substantiate that the indigenous religion is 60 000 yrs older. Have you any records? Please try not to insult our intelligences.

CJ

If the anangu have leased out the land, until such time as the lease expires they legally have little say.

TTM and Shadow Minister,

I can never understand what people mean when they say that Aboriginal religion, or art, or languages, or culture generally is sixty thousand years old: all 'culture', etc., is equally old, or young, and surely its origins go back to the first humans, back in Africa ?

If people mean that Aboriginal culture etc. has not changed in 60,000 years, what is so great about that ? I don't think that it is the case, but what are people claiming ? Yes, sixty or forty or twenty thousand years ago, all human groups had roughly similar 'culture', depending primarily on the local environments, but at the end of the Ice Age (during which surely 'cultures' had to adapt ?), some groups were able to develop agriculture and pastoralism, while other groups 'chose' to keep foraging, since it was probably more productive (cf. Bellwood's 'First Farmers', a brilliant book).

But what would be so great about not changing, even if it were so ? Isn't that the definition of hide-bound conservatism ? And isn't it the case that Aboriginal society has been fundamentally transformed, in some parts much more than others, by 200 years of 'interaction' with outsiders ?

In short, everybody has had culture for about the same length of time, but some groups are aware of foundational transformations while other groups prefer not to admit to changes ? All human groups have had language for about the same length of time, and God knows what changes every one of them must have undergone, as environments, food sources, productive techniques and cultural practices changed.

All human societies change, adapt, innovate, modify, borrow and learn from each other - we all have done this for a hell of a lot more than 60,000 years. Nobody is privileged in this and only the accidents of geography have denied those early interactions between groups, across what the historian Phillip Curtin called the 'intercommunicating zones'.

Joe

TTM and Shadow Minister,

"I can never understand what people mean when they say that Aboriginal religion, or art, or languages, or culture generally is sixty thousand years old: all 'culture', etc., is equally old, or young, and surely its origins go back to the first humans, back in Africa ?"

Loudmouth, Shadow Minister. I was wondering who would pick-up on that one, and no, Iam not testing your Intel, merely the memories to the facts of past writings.

Loudmouth. Yes you quite right and thank you for rephrasing it. I remember reading something a few years ago along the lines of, "in the times of human evolvement, I believe there was one critical turning point regarding our transitional change from apes to man. When instinct left and the conscious mind began, the first humans looked up to the sky's and began to wonder and question, then find explanations for his existence in the wonderful and confusing new world his eyes pondered upon, and then gazed to the heavens which brought forward all the wonderful gods which the imaginations had given.
So man began with paintings on the walls with the great bull gods, the great serpent gods, and god after god after god just kept on coming as the conscious minds of these early beings began to expand. And today, religion is still being exploited by holding man at bay with a long gone primitive time from our pasts which is slowly loosing relevance as evolution continues to pave it's path of gold.

After all this time has lapsed, We have in-fact been already pre-programed for the future to come
and fear is not part of it.

Continued.

Religions will always for a time to come, but not as mankind's new stage of evolution, which some now are looking beyond the heavens and that's this transitional change period which many fail to observe while going through it.

In my humble opinion as man went from animal to human so to speak, now the new change from the religious old to the religious new where it be science or other, the expanding evolved conscious mind will now go on into the future and new paintings on the walls shall write our histories as we have seen them unfold right before our eyes.

But for the time being, we will all have to deal with what we have got, and what some of them as I know, do not like the winds of change.

TTM

CJ and Severin, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your idea of imposing or increasing a fee to climb the Rock, for the same reason I thought the 'alco pop' tax was a rort.
What we're saying here is that it's alright for rich folks to get pie eyed; everyone knows rich folk don't cause problems. It's only poor people we need to keep sober; they're just born trouble makers.
Poor people climb the rock? Heaven forfend! Leave that sort of thing to rich folk, who have 'earned' the right.
Personally I liked the girl's (obviously farcical) statement that it was actually an act of homage, since the tradition owners traditionally wore significantly less.
Exactly. She should be deported for wearing too much.
You want to restrict climbers on the Rock, and minimise damage? Make it obligatory for all climbers to wear 'traditional dress'.

Grim

>> You want to restrict climbers on the Rock, and minimise damage? Make it obligatory for all climbers to wear 'traditional dress'. <<

I take your point, a most excellent one. Why indeed should the Uluru experience just be for the wealthy? Short of conducting an income test on would be tourists, I'm not sure how the Unungu people can make a quid out of it.

Strip before you climb.

Excellent solution.

She’s stripping on the Rock
What an almighty sight to see
And I’m wishing I had been there
To see the French beautee

In her teeny bikeenee

(apologies to John Williamson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcgPdppG_k

Ahh yes, there should be much more of that sort of thing. Young women in bikinis, out in the desert, in our national parks and all over the place at tourist destinations. Now THAT would definitely improve my holiday experience!! ( :>)

Afterall, this is Australia, not Westminster Abbey or Mecca!

Was it disrespectful to the traditional owners? Not at all.

I think that it was disingenuous for them to suggest that it was, and a bit of a sloppy and very transparent excuse for them to have another whinge about closing the climb.

"You want to restrict climbers on the Rock, and minimise damage? Make it obligatory for all climbers to wear 'traditional dress'."

awesome idea but there are some people I'd not want to follow on the climb up the rock.

R0bert