Hint: Just because you don't see harm doesn't mean it isn't there.
CBee wrote:Hint: Just because you don't see harm doesn't mean it isn't there.
Hint for hint: just because you do see harm doesn't mean it is there.
freetoroam wrote:Having spent some time researching the differing Aboriginal views about access it's quite surprising some would choose to insult the memory of the much respected Marlene Boyd whose family are the true custodians of the mountain in such an awful way. .
So now I'm imagining things? Neat attempt at gaslighting.
CBee wrote:So now I'm imagining things? Neat attempt at gaslighting.
Show me some facts that walking on Mt. Warning (if you know where it is) causes harms. Not posting about walking on private property or mine sites, not interested.
clarence wrote:NPWS often use very blunt instruments to manage, and transparency and consultation are not their strong points.
If the relevant parties thought this through they could make it a huge win for all involved.
Strictly limit numbers. Make it a guided walk, managed and interpreted by the Aboriginal community. Use this as a method for educate people, share their culture, and minimise environmental impact.
Funds could be used to education of white fellas and overseas tourists alike, track maintenance and interpretation.
It is more about how it is climbed, rather than a yes or no question.
There are a lot of options between open slather and completely closed.
Clarence
Return to New South Wales & ACT
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests