We are currently in a new era of growing facism.Since 911 and the AGW scares,our civil liberties are being slowly eroded.Bush brought in the patriot act,which negates habeous corpus.They have "preventative denention" ie even if your are suspected of being a terrorist you can be detained indefinitely without trial or legal council.

We have the growing rise of facism here with our civil liberties being infringed upon via the ruse of perceived terrorism and the environment.

Obama now wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.George Orwell would say," I told you so."

CJ, I can’t imagine that the public could get anywhere near the military facilities at Jervis Bay where they might be able to take sensitive photos. Restrictions on taking photos in the national park could not possibly have anything to do with military sensitivities, surely!

I disagree that tourists should be forbidden from photographing sacred sites at Uluru. Some of the most distinctive features on the rock became sacred sites in the first place because of their distinctiveness. But they are exactly the sorts of things that tourists want to capture in photos.

I think that the democratic freedom for all Australian citizens and our overseas guests to take photos of natural features of any kind in our national parks should take precedence over the traditional owners’ wishes to prevent sacred sites from being photographed.

These sites get photographed a lot anyway, as not all tourists see the rock in organised tour groups. It is easy to not observe the ‘no photos please’ signs if you are not with other people or tour guides who might object. People are not going to be stung with a dirty great fine or kicked out of the park or the country if they get caught photographing these features.

All the thillions of photos that have been taken over the years of these features have not depleted the integrity of these sacred sites. So restrictions on photos at Uluru should just be dropped.

As I said in my last post, I really felt quite uncomfortable and unhappy about not being able to freely photograph such an amazing and iconic feature as Uluru.

continue

In relation to the point that Ross Barnett made at the end of the article about the environmental impact of photographers compared to feral camels, a similar sort of thing applies at Uluru.

The effect of photographers is utterly insignificant compared to the environmental impact of buffel grass, which has just grossly invaded the desert scrub all around the Rock. This considerably increases the likely frequency and intensity of fire. Buffel grass itself and the resultant changes in the fire regime are having a huge impact on the ecology of the area. There are lots of areas of dead trees, as I recall, presumably killed by hot wildfire.

If park rangers and traditional owners were seen to be actively addressing this issue, then people like me might be a little more respectful of the limitations on photos. But currently, there appear to be restrictions on something which is completely harmless while other major factors affecting the local environment, and the quality of the experience for visitors, are not being adequately addressed, if addressed at all.

I am happy to respect restrictions on photography of sacred sites if such photography is, in fact, offensive. But if that is the case, then there should be a blanket ban on all photography. I don't see how a photo taken for a postcard - then reproduced a few thousand times and sold for a profit - is more respectful than a photograph taken by a tourist who has forked out thousands of dollars for a trip and simply wants to have a treasured keepsake from his/her journey. It doesn't make sense.

I have seen the same double-standard in many parts of the world. You may not take photos of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but you can buy photos. You may not take photos in the Parisian catacombs, but you can buy photos.

Perhaps more reasonably, you may not take photos in the Capuchin mausoleum in Rome, where bones of friars past are out on display. Taking photos of dead bodies is somewhat morbid. However, (surprise, surprise) you can buy photos at the gift shop out front. If it is disrespectful, I think it is doubly disrespectful not only to take photos, but to make a profit from those photos. If it is not disrespectful, then there is not reason to stop tourists from doing it while allowing the professionals. They need to make a decision, as do the people making up the Ulurules as they go.

Until there is one rule for all, I will quietly snigger every time I see tourists sneakily snapping pictures. Being a stickler for rules, I won't join in, and I won't get out of their way. But I will not buy the poor-quality photos whose prices are artificially inflated by the prohibition of people like me taking much better pictures (I won't buy the high quality photos either, for the record - not that I've seen too many of them).

It is a long way to go to see a rock.

It is very easy for a tourist destination to earn a permanent reputation as a tourist trap where the locals and the authorities are luke-warm about tourists and regard them as geese to be herded and plucked.

There was the attempt previously to close the rock because of the death of a 'keeper'. It is not exactly Wally World and locking it down for even a short time would have had a long term effect on overseas tourism. Travel agents work well in advance, particularly where international travel is involved and who wants to disappoint customers?

It is very short-sighted to ramp up park fees when those visitors are spending money in the district.

Before scolding visitors, corralling them in cattle crushes to take their happy snaps, or ramping up fees, Parks Australia and indigenous spokespeople need to put themselves in the position of an overseas travel agent who is recommending destinations to tourists. Would you stake your reputation and valuable repeat business on recommending a long trip to a remote place where the flies are certain to be more welcoming than the locals?

I first got the feeling that I as an Australian was not welcome in the land of my birth when I arrived at Darwin airport, returning from an overseas holiday about 10 years ago. An Immigration officer wanted to know where I had been, what had I done there, who had I traveled with or met, plus other things that were nothing to concern the government or its officers as far as I can see. Then customs demanded that I place my baggage on the floor so that their dog could go tramping and sniffing all over it. Reluctantly it seemed, the Australian government's officers allowed me to go, but not without leaving me with the feeling that this was an atrocious way to welcome home a lifelong Australian citizen. A sad contrast with the easy way I progressed through numerous foreign airports whilst I had been away.

I had never experienced similar discourtesy when returning from overseas holidays through other Australian airports so thought perhaps it was just Darwin was bad. But three times since then I have experienced worse at Brisbane. The Australian government has evidently given up any pretence that it is not my enemy.

Just start from the belief that government is your worst enemy, and many things become easier to understand.