Mt. WARNING
-
- 100 or more tracks walked
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 18 August 08 6:03 pm
- Location: COLLINGWOOD PARK
Mt. WARNING
Has anyone recently found / attempted , ELVIS HAS LEFT THE MOUNTAIN ,cache on top of Mt. WARNING & encountered the locals asking you not to climb, as the mountain is a SACRED site ?
What would be the proper protocol for this situation ? As I want to climb Mt. WARNING & be respectfull of the locals customs & beliefs .
Recent logs for cache make only 1 reference ...
What would be the proper protocol for this situation ? As I want to climb Mt. WARNING & be respectfull of the locals customs & beliefs .
Recent logs for cache make only 1 reference ...
To the Bundjalung people for many miles around, the mountain is called Wollumbin, and remains an important sacred site.
20 May, 2003; Courtesy NSW NPWS - "Wollumbin is a sacred place of great significance to the people of the Bundjalung Nation. It is a traditional place of cultural law, initiation and spiritual education.
Under Bundjalung law, only specifically chosen people are allowed to climb Wollumbin. Out of respect for their law and culture, the Bundjalung ask that you consider choosing not to climb."
20 May, 2003; Courtesy NSW NPWS - "Wollumbin is a sacred place of great significance to the people of the Bundjalung Nation. It is a traditional place of cultural law, initiation and spiritual education.
Under Bundjalung law, only specifically chosen people are allowed to climb Wollumbin. Out of respect for their law and culture, the Bundjalung ask that you consider choosing not to climb."
- Shifter Brains
- 8500 or more caches found
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 04 September 05 5:57 pm
- Location: Gosford
A few years ago I also heard it was a sacred site and I have found these references to it being a sacred site.</p>
- This one mentions not climbing the mountain: http://www.visitlismore.com.au/cmst/vl0 ... 926&cat=74 .</p>
and this one says the path avoids the sacred areas: http://www.hillcrestbb.com.au/mtwarning.htm</p>
this forum has quite a discussion on climbing Mt Warning: http://www.australianethnobotany.com/vi ... b5db4534f0</p>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Warning</p>
http://www.tropicalnsw.com.au/nationalp ... rning.html</p>
- CaleD
- 100 or more tracks walked
- Posts: 259
- Joined: 20 June 07 8:11 pm
- Location: Gold Coast, QLD
- Contact:
I visited the base of the mountain a few days ago, merely for a drive (I'm from the Gold Coast). There is a sign at the base of the mountain before the track begins that asks people not to climb because it is a sacred site.
As Wingaap mentioned, only specifically chosen people are allowed to climb the mountain, and the sign makes this very clear. I would personally suggest not climbing out of respect to the wishes of the traditional owners.
As Wingaap mentioned, only specifically chosen people are allowed to climb the mountain, and the sign makes this very clear. I would personally suggest not climbing out of respect to the wishes of the traditional owners.
-
- 3500 or more caches found
- Posts: 294
- Joined: 15 April 03 11:03 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
- Papa Bear_Left
- 800 or more hollow logs searched
- Posts: 2573
- Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
- Location: Kalamunda, WA
- Contact:
I'm pleased that I haven't had to deal with this issue often as a reviewer.
There's been several caches, usually attempted virtuals, on and around Uluru, but almost none of them have had any pretense at being maintainable, so that precluded any decision needing to be made on other grounds.
One was placed at the base of the rock, reportedly with the advice and approval of the local authorities, but it was never found and ended up archived.
In this case, however, the cache appears to've been removed and it was no longer a traditional cache, so this issue has gone away.
Ignore the cultural issues if you wish, but not to find a cache.
There's been several caches, usually attempted virtuals, on and around Uluru, but almost none of them have had any pretense at being maintainable, so that precluded any decision needing to be made on other grounds.
One was placed at the base of the rock, reportedly with the advice and approval of the local authorities, but it was never found and ended up archived.
In this case, however, the cache appears to've been removed and it was no longer a traditional cache, so this issue has gone away.
Ignore the cultural issues if you wish, but not to find a cache.
That's not what you are saying at all, I was trying to come up with some witty quip, but I'm failed at this point in time.Papa Bear_Left wrote:In this case, however, the cache appears to've been removed and it was no longer a traditional cache, so this issue has gone away.
Ignore the cultural issues if you wish, but not to find a cache.
The issue at hand is to do with guilt by association. You on one hand are trying to disassociate your self from a particular activity that you aren't condoning or condeming either.
On the other hand you don't want guilt by association complicating things for geocaching, I'm pretty sure there is a conflict of interest here, due to trying to please everyone all the time.
I think there should be objective policy on the matter, rather than wishy washy flippy floppy or you are only going to end up getting everyone off side, clearly all land is "owned" by someone, weather it be a natural person(s) or government or group or whatever, but all land is generally owned, I'm sure there is exceptions of no mans land in war areas, but good luck placing and finding those caches!
The key is to be consistent with policy, you will never please everyone all the time, but if you flip flop you only end up ticking off twice as many people.
PS what I'm saying here is, who officially owns the land, and following policy from there, obviously there is some dispute above and beyond geocaching going on here and until that is solved by authorised 3rd party it sounds like crown land still and land like any other national park and should be treated as such imho.
The reasoning for the above is simple, if every voictress minority party was listened to for every minor thing well I'm sure all the animals would have pet humans by now, kinda like that dinosoar show that used be be on TV.... "Not the mamma *thump*"
Land rights is a complicated issue, and not one for any goecaching org to pick and choose which to deal with and which not to deal with, it should be based on the current land owner, and until such times as a court rules other wise or the crown hands over rights to that piece of land, the current land owner is the current land owner.
Actually even GroundSpeak would have a precident for this, or if they don't I'd be remarkably surprised.
How does/did GroundSpeak deal with requests about Catalonia, which has been part of Spain for over 400 years when they were invaded by the Spanish, yet those in Barcelona and surrounding parts of what were Catalonia want to be their own country still, there is another part of Spain in the same boat, but I don't think they are as voicetress these days, but were certainly blowing things up in the 1980's trying to win their independence from spain.
How does/did GroundSpeak deal with requests about Catalonia, which has been part of Spain for over 400 years when they were invaded by the Spanish, yet those in Barcelona and surrounding parts of what were Catalonia want to be their own country still, there is another part of Spain in the same boat, but I don't think they are as voicetress these days, but were certainly blowing things up in the 1980's trying to win their independence from spain.
- Papa Bear_Left
- 800 or more hollow logs searched
- Posts: 2573
- Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
- Location: Kalamunda, WA
- Contact:
OK, I'll try to be clearer, just for you, df.
Personally, I'll go a little out of my way to respect other people's (and peoples') sacred sites. I didn't climb Uluru whenever I visited, and I stayed out of the marked areas around the base. I also don't spit into the fonts in cathedrals, wear hiking boots into Shinto temples, or throw ham sandwiches into synagogues.
Just politeness, really.
If it was really important for me to climb a hill that was significant enough to the locals for them to erect signs asking me not to, I would. It's not an absolute position, just a preference to be respectful at little cost to myself.
In this particular case, it was a cache that had been muggled (or maybe removed by the rangers, according to one cacher's note) and half-way turned into a virtual. The type was never changed, though, so it's now a wrongly-labelled Trad. It can't be changed to a Virtual, they no longer exist. It can't be replaced, because it's on DECC land and they don't allow caches. (We haven't yet decided to archive all the existing caches, but we're not publishing new ones or facilititing the maintenance of old ones.)
So it's archived.
Climbing the hill is now a matter of individual choice, unfettered from the temptation of a geocache.
Personally, I'll go a little out of my way to respect other people's (and peoples') sacred sites. I didn't climb Uluru whenever I visited, and I stayed out of the marked areas around the base. I also don't spit into the fonts in cathedrals, wear hiking boots into Shinto temples, or throw ham sandwiches into synagogues.
Just politeness, really.
If it was really important for me to climb a hill that was significant enough to the locals for them to erect signs asking me not to, I would. It's not an absolute position, just a preference to be respectful at little cost to myself.
In this particular case, it was a cache that had been muggled (or maybe removed by the rangers, according to one cacher's note) and half-way turned into a virtual. The type was never changed, though, so it's now a wrongly-labelled Trad. It can't be changed to a Virtual, they no longer exist. It can't be replaced, because it's on DECC land and they don't allow caches. (We haven't yet decided to archive all the existing caches, but we're not publishing new ones or facilititing the maintenance of old ones.)
So it's archived.
Climbing the hill is now a matter of individual choice, unfettered from the temptation of a geocache.
How's this any diff than NSW NPWS ban on caches and having them removed?Papa Bear_Left wrote:It can't be replaced, because it's on DECC land and they don't allow caches. (We haven't yet decided to archive all the existing caches, but we're not publishing new ones or facilititing the maintenance of old ones.)
- PesceVerde
- 700 or more Caches found
- Posts: 452
- Joined: 07 February 08 12:12 pm
- Location: Arana Hills.
- Bundyrumandcoke
- 5000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
- Location: Blackwater Queensland
You are opening a can of worms here.PesceVerde wrote:I try not to read as much complexity as possible into simple statements, and I personally try to respect other cultures as I expect others to try to respect mine.
One culture or race will always dislodge another usually by wiping them out, those from the UK weren't the first to displace or wipe out a culture or race in Australia.
- tronador
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1555
- Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
- Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW
Me too, I've climbed both but not as a kid. Both were awesome climbs.Bundyrumandcoke wrote:Mt Warning and Ayres Rock, I climbed both of them as a kid.
If I visited either site again, and was into climbing hills, I would climb them again. It's just, I'm not into climbing hills anymore.
Cheers
Bundy
The track up Mt Warning is well established and if you're fit, an easy climb. Unfortunately the trees at the top are starting to block the views. Cool bush turkeys up there too.
( Each to their own.......... I won't discuss politics, religion or culture....... I just love the outdoors too much.)