Little Desert returned to Aboriginals due to Native Title Claim

Submitted: Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 18:14
ThreadID: 28845 Views:2608 Replies:12 FollowUps:26
This Thread has been Archived
Well it appears that the top part of Little Desert, including the Horseshoe Bend Camping area has been returned to the original inhabitants due to a Native Tile Claim. The Labor Govt here in Vic is quite chuffed about it, so I wonder how long it is before the fees go up or access is denied to some of the best sand driving experiences in Victoria's Desert Region. May we soon need permits to drive in this area of Vic? It will be a sad day if that ever happens.

Cheers

Glenn
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Willem - Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 19:17

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 19:17
Yes, we are creating a fuedal system akin to the middle ages.

In the future, maybe long after my time, there may be a revolt in this country (we are seeing some of these scenes now as unrest spreads in the more populated areas) as politicians pander to the minority lobby groups to justify their own existence.

Bob Hawke blundered when he failed to sign a treaty with Aboriginal Australia in 1988. Tjhis treaty may have solved the growing disparity on land ownership.

And what most people fail to understand is that the land is here for millenia...we for only three score years and ten+....if we are lucky.
AnswerID: 143709

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 21:50

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 21:50
I give it 12 mths until the fees go up and permit are required.
AnswerID: 143753

Reply By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 22:12

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 22:12
Bloody hell that's a bit over the top Glen.

And now the facts:

The court has given 5 tribes non exclusive rights to hunt, fish, camp and generally have a good time on 260 sq kilometres of crown land along the wimmera river. Sounds like they got suckered to me.
AnswerID: 143756

Follow Up By: ian - Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 22:51

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 22:51
Careful Mad Dog,

You might let the facts get in the way of unfounded emotion

ian
0
FollowupID: 397232

Follow Up By: gramps - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 00:39

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 00:39
Starting to get like journos now. Why let facts get in the way of a good story? :)))
0
FollowupID: 397251

Follow Up By: Wombat - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:06

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:06
Aaaaaawwwww! Geeeeeeeez Ray. Why did you have to pour that cold water on what could have been a great opportunity to creat a reeeeeaaallllly, reeeeeeaaalllly long thread about how us poor whities are being discriminated against, again?
0
FollowupID: 397319

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:25

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:25
Who me! I'm just a "New Australian" with a good grasp of the lingo...don't mean any offense, defense or subsequence :)
Put another log on da fire will ya
0
FollowupID: 397324

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 17:46

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 17:46
Wombat - if a law were to be passed allowing any white person who could prove their Anglo Saxon heritage to hunt in a National Park but specifically prohibited any black person would you not say that was discrimination?

I would like to hunt rabbit in Little Desert National Park yet I cannot; is that fair and equitable?

We have, and quite properly, laws preventing racial discrimination in all walks of life yet here we create a legal framework doing exactly the opposite. Is it any wonder people become resentful?

Surely what we need to do is tear down barriers between black and white not erect more of them?

Mike Harding

mike_harding@fastmail.fm
0
FollowupID: 397340

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 17:53

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 17:53
Good grief Mike, you've never had Little Desert Rabbit Stew!...pull the other one
0
FollowupID: 397342

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:55

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:55
There are rabbit in Little Desert Ray - hell, I've even seen them in the Simpson. They eat the desert grasses which help to bind the sand.

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 397350

Follow Up By: Wombat - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 19:20

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 19:20
My meat comes from the supermarket Mr Harding. This seems to me to be the most civilised and humane way of gaining my sustenance. I don't feel the need to satisfy any primal desires by hunting in a National Park, or anywhere else for that matter.

But the answer to your question "Surely what we need to do is tear down barriers between black and white not erect more of them?", is a resound "YES". Unfortunately, I don't have the answers, but I do know that announcing the facts in the sensationalist manner which they have been in this post is inflammatory and geared towards exacerbating the problem.
0
FollowupID: 397354

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 17:54

Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 17:54
Mike, yes I know there are rabbits there. I was expressing surpise that you've never had one of them in a pot.
0
FollowupID: 397645

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Saturday, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:25

Saturday, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:25
Oh I see what you mean now :)

This is such a big problem with e-mail et al isn't it - what you write may not be what I read.

Rabbit from Little Desert NP? Certainly not Ray! I'm not allowed to take firearms into there. Not even a very quiet high power air rifle.

btw Wombat - I doubt a calf in a veal crate or a chook in a battery cage would agree with you that their lives prior to ending up on the plate were superior to that of the dear or rabbit which has spent it's life in the forest doing as nature intended. Actually I'm mainly vegetarian these days, that seems to me to be the most civilised and humane way of gaining my sustenance.

Mike Harding

PS. A very happy Christmas and an even better New Year to everyone.
PPS. Lovely pic. of your daughter Wombat.
0
FollowupID: 397684

Follow Up By: Wombat - Monday, Dec 19, 2005 at 12:21

Monday, Dec 19, 2005 at 12:21
"PPS. Lovely pic. of your daughter Wombat." Thanks Mike - I think I'll keep her!
0
FollowupID: 398034

Reply By: KenD - Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 23:23

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005 at 23:23
A few Cronulla boys on this site?
Some tokenistic redress of the rip-off and there's this ignorant outrage!
Put your brains and your hearts into gear.
AnswerID: 143763

Reply By: geocacher (djcache) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 00:32

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 00:32
I don't think they got title, just access. Given that it was public area anyway I don't see what the big deal is.

Dave
AnswerID: 143772

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:41

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:41
You try hunting and killing native animals in a National Park and you'll soon find out.

Are the tribes in this area in such need of basic food that they have to hunt?

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 397254

Follow Up By: Nudenut - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:24

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:24
a few weeks back we (a couple of mates [& landowner] on board) were on private land eradicating ferals pests (goats,foxes etc) when we came across a couple of guys with a troopie, skinning a roo and a couple of sheep.......thinking the landowner would like to stop and talk to these guys i began to slow down....dont stop said the landowner...???thinks I.....
Pt augusta was only 67klm that-away...no outback roaming tribes around these parts...these guys were city slickers !!
if they were white...well they would be reported wouldnt they...because black leave them alone unless you want trouble is the motto...
native title...they think they own it all now!!! and demonstrate contempt at anything else
0
FollowupID: 397257

Reply By: Turbo Diesel - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:49

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:49
First of all Glen love the Cruiser photo looks great. Just returned from Cape York where everything is owned and more importantly controlled by you know who. I must say this, I'm in no way a racist by anyone standards so to me this issue is not about race but rather about preservation of Australia for all. As long as management of the area in the desert is carried out and maintained all will enjoy now and forever. However if any one group of people can't manage a region well it should be taken of them (management that is not the land). For example at the tip of cape york there is a run down condemmed resort once owned by Austrlian Airlines, due to native title it was handed back to the local aboriginal community, who since owning it have effectively turned the place into a rubbish tip. They asked the gov't for 5 mil to rebuild the place to wich the labour gov't in queensland responded with "Yes we will give you 5 mil but the gov't will rebuild and manage the facility and the local community can receiv 28% of the profit" sound like a good deal well the local natives rejected the idea and stated we want 100% control and return of revenue to which the gov't replied "go and get ???????" Anyway the point is that the area is run down and mismanaged and now no one is beneffiting. What do you do? What can we do? Well just about nothing but get in our cruiser pay the fees and enjoy what is left for what it is.
AnswerID: 143797

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:10

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:10
Soap box time again :)
Every Govt gets handed this problem. Despite the expenditure of billions of taxpayer funds, little improvement can be seen from either side of the fence. Governments have encouraged a sort of "hip pocket cargo cult mentality" that has had a genocidal effect until recently.

Part of the problem as I see it, is the reluctance of communities to raise their hands and say "Heuston, we have a problem." There are many reasons why this hasn't happened, and unfortunately some are for reasons that I'm not proud of. But there are others who aren't white who should hang their heads in shame also.

There have been some recent interesting developments, occasionally coming from communities themselves.

There are some excellent examples of self sufficiency, although all too few in number.

Some Govt policies have changed, for example in the distribution of sit down money etc. The effects of such changes may take a while to appear on our radar.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no one policy that fits all. There's no magic pudding in today's world.

If you find a sensible solution then let me know, I'm sure a few others would be interested , both black and white :))

0
FollowupID: 397278

Reply By: myfourby - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 13:12

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 13:12
We stole the place off them - why do we get so upset when they ask for it back and charge fees and set their own rules?? It was their place to begin with - don't forget that!!!

After travelling Australia for a year and working with a lot of Aboriginals - I cannot express how misunderstood Aboriginals are by mainstream Australia. They just want life to be the way it was 217 years ago - we cannot give them that (or should I say - we WILL NOT give them that). Both sides are now stuck in an awful mess - neither knowing how to deal with the situation they find themselves in.

Narrow-minded negative comments only inflame an already difficult situation.

Paying to use land that you do not own (and never really owned in the first place!)is standard procedure around the world! We need to start dealing with the fact that WE are the foreigners’ who have made claims on their land - not the other way around.

-myfourby
AnswerID: 143821

Follow Up By: Gerhardp1 - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 13:39

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 13:39
The whole world as it is currently consists of countries which "stole" their land off someone who was there before.

The only place which seems hell bent on giving back occupied territory is Australian do-gooders.

The Aboriginals were themselves immigrants who "stole" Australia, but they are not planning on giving it back.

Bugger going back 217 years, I just want things the way they were 30 years ago, but that's not going to happen any more than going back 217 years.
0
FollowupID: 397310

Follow Up By: myfourby - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 15:28

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 15:28
Just because other parts of the world are not giving land back to their original owners does not give us the right to do the same.

I don't believe that the "do-gooders" that are giving back land are doing the wrong thing - they are doing their best to give the communities back some of what they used to have. This is something that is helping them conserve what is left of their culture and way of life - which is many thousands of years in the making (and really is Australia's long-term true history and culture) - something of which we appear "hell bent" on destroying as quickly possible.

The real problematic do-gooders are those that spend big taxpayer $$ on infrastructure that the communities don't want - and as a result, don't care for.

I don't know what all the answers are - there is not easy fix - I know we can't turn back the clock - however I don't have a problem with the reclaiming of land - as I beleive that overall - it is helping.

-myfourby
0
FollowupID: 397331

Follow Up By: Member - Bill F (VIC) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 16:38

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 16:38
myfourby

Where does it end
I paid someone to buy their land at their accepted price so it is now mine.
The land is mine untill someone with a big or bigger stick or carrot comes along and says it's theirs

It is time for all cultures to be assimilated into the present culture of our great land

ONE LAW for all cultures that live in the present day AUSTRALIA

Bad spelling and puntation should not be tolerated

Bill F
Fay'd away from the crowd

Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 397335

Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:02

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:02
I have always kept my thoughts to myself in this matter, but there was a comment in the Melbourne Herald Sun that I found particularly interesting during the debate over the culling of the Fraser Island dingos & it was that .... the dingos are not a native animals, but feral because thay came across to Australia with the Aborigines over 4000 years ago.
Hmmm...... must admit it did make me think!
0
FollowupID: 397343

Follow Up By: gramps - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:18

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:18
This is where I get totally confused, mind you, so do the so called educated academics.

"came across to Australia with the Aborigines over 4000 years ago"

Hmmmm. Others say the Aborigines have been here for over 30,000 years !!! What? Did they check it out first then go home and bring the dogs along to their new home????? Or, are the remains/indications of human life here over 30,000 years ago the ones the Aborigines stole the place from before we stole it from them, if you get my drift. If you do, let me know because I think I lost my anchor somewhere :))))

They now have so little claim over this continent, why worry. If there are some places we can't go, so be it. There are plenty of other places to visit. I doubt whether anyone will ever see them all anyway.
0
FollowupID: 397346

Follow Up By: Gerhardp1 - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:55

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 18:55
Gramps, I suspect that Shaker committed a typo - probably actually meant 40,000 years
0
FollowupID: 397349

Follow Up By: Wombat - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 19:07

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 19:07
No, not a typo Gerhard. Dingos did not arrive in Australia as companions of the original Aborigines around 50,000 years ago, but seem to have been brought by seafaring Austronesian traders at about the same time as the Great Pyramids were being built in ancient Egypt. A study of dingo mitochondrial DNA published in 2004 places their arrival at around 4000 BC, and suggests that only one small group may be the ancestors of all modern dingos.
0
FollowupID: 397351

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 22:26

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 22:26
Gerhardp1 posted this followup

The whole world as it is currently consists of countries which "stole" their land off someone who was there before.

The only place which seems hell bent on giving back occupied territory is Australian do-gooders.

The Aboriginals were themselves immigrants who "stole" Australia, but they are not planning on giving it back.

Bugger going back 217 years, I just want things the way they were 30 years ago, but that's not going to happen any more than going back 217 years.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Could not have said it better myself!!!!!!!

0
FollowupID: 397386

Reply By: Member - Andy Q (VIC) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:09

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 14:09
G'day, Just remember Glenn, you cast the first stone, this time. I can hear a drumming sound!@#$%^.......wasn't it some so called public figure who said 'you idiot'
AnswerID: 143830

Reply By: ian - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 21:17

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 21:17
Andy,
I disagree, I think there is no harm in discussing these things. I am most impressed that the various contributers have said what they think, and not attacked the other contributers.

I want to add for Glenn and others that according to The Age today that the Federal Court, (not any government), has recognised
"non-exclusive native title rights to hunt, fish, gather and camp in Crown reserves....along the banks of the Wimmera River".
I see that as just more of the same as all of us are able to do anyway. No mention there of Nat Parks?
They were also awarded 45 hectares of culturally signficant land. No big deal there is it? 45 hectares! If it gives a group of people some sense of self-worth it is a good thing!
Also they were granted an advisory role in the management of some national parks and wilderness areas. My observation of Nat Parks is that there are so many bloody committees and so many rules, and I get so bleep off with them, that it won't change a thing!

I get annoyed by some of the silly permits and things we all get heated about, but if we are fair and honest, and not led by fear of what we don't know, we have no real concerns.

People on this site get heated, and rightly so, about anti-4X4 crap, all of us being branded by the stupidity of a few. In the same way most Australians accuse all aborigines of the actions of a few in places like Alice. When you travel to communities and see that the majority of blackfellas are just people lost to our society and in need of help. In many ways we share much with them. Stuffed if I know what the answer is though.

Ian
AnswerID: 143898

Follow Up By: Member - Andy Q (VIC) - Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 22:06

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005 at 22:06
G'day Ian, Yeah! I hear you, I was just pointing out that Glenn was/is being provocative for the avalanche of an inflamatory postings. It was not an attack, but a statment of what I understood.
0
FollowupID: 397385

Reply By: Ruth from Birdsville Caravan Park - Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:02

Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:02
Congratulations on the free discussion with regard to Glenn's Post - well done.
AnswerID: 143972

Reply By: Hairy - Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:32

Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:32
Have you heard Claire Martin is talking about handing back all Territory parks to the indigenous ! For a start what makes her think the parks are hers to give away and secondly you just need to go down to the rock and see how well indigenous management has worked down there. Recently the mob from fat pizza took photos of the rock and are now looking like getting fined for it. $25 per person entry fee, they dont want you to climb it, you cant fly near it , soon you wont be able to look at it!
Great move Claire!
AnswerID: 144002

Reply By: Glenn (VIC) - Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 21:26

Thursday, Dec 15, 2005 at 21:26
To all who have responded,

I have to admit, I should have been more careful in the way I submitted the original post. I certainly DID NOT post it to create any sort of racist comments or aggression. I was mearly trying to advise others in this great multicultural country or ours, and I do mean ours, each and every one of us humans who live in this great country, of what had happened in one of Victoria's great National Parks. I am concerned about the way the fee structure and access for us may change, that is all.

I do apologise if I misled anyone in the original post.

Regards

Glenn
AnswerID: 144090

Follow Up By: gramps - Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 00:34

Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 00:34
Glenn,

Don't worry about it. I don't think anyone was seriously misled. It's just a topic where people have a very wide range of opinions and have to express them at every opportunity, me included :))))))))
0
FollowupID: 397568

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:33

Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:33
You kicked off a good thread Glen. Don't feel bad about it mate.
0
FollowupID: 397570

Follow Up By: Wombat - Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:11

Friday, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:11
Glenn,

From what I gather the claimants have been awarded non-exclusive rights to the designated areas which suggests that there is no scope for them to introduce any fees. But, I think the pros and cons of land rights are certainly worthy of debate. If only it could be done in a fundamental and unbigoted manner.
0
FollowupID: 397602

Sponsored Links