Garry wrote on 12-03-07:
These areas are for all to see. They should surely be controlled so that respectful access can be maintained. The Canning Stock Route is not an easily or readily accessed area. I would expect that the majority of travellers would support an organised access rather than close the area to all.

Sara (WA) wrote on 12-03-07:
I believe it is vital for travellers here to learn what we can about the way of life and culture of our Ingigenous people so that it will lead to greater understanding and respect between us. We are all dwellers in this magnificent country and knowledge and experience paves the way towards this goal.
Respect comes from understanding. The Aboriginal customs, society and Art are unique and should therefore be maintained and protected, yet also seen, for a deeper understanding to occur .
I agree with the suggestion to have trained and "aware" tour guides to work alongside the original people of this land, so that these special places remain accessible to all people who value the importance of these sites .

Merike wrote on 12-03-07:
I feel very strongly about the issue of public (and therefore my) rights to access wonderful places in Australia, and the world. We are all human beings living on this little planet. NO ONE should have exclusive rights to beaches, mountains, rivers, valleys, etc. The Calvert Range was here long before the Aboriginies came to Australia. Of course we respect and appreciate cultural artifacts but this can be done without restricting the majority of people from seeing them. I do not agree with the juvenile concept of "secret" places. Let me know what I can do to maintain public access to the wonders of Australia - they belong to all of us.

Max (WA) wrote on 13-03-07:
I believe that you are correct. The Canning Stock Route is part of all of our heritage and should be maintained and nurtured but not be secestrated by any particular interest group.

Craig (SA) wrote on 13-03-07:
sorry to be so blunt but it is our right as an Australian to see our own backyard. It's ironic that 4wd'ers in general look after the land better than the traditional owners (not racist just fact). Routes like the Canning Stock Route do not get the disrespectual 4wd'ers. Tracks like this should be kept open for everyone.

Andrew (SA) wrote on 13-03-07:
There are a few issues first up. Under what legal basis is the access to the Calvert Range and similar areas being prohibited?
If it is the Native Title Act and the decision of the Traditional Owners, then there is good reason to believe that public access available up until 1993 should continue as there is a specific provision in the WA Act for this.
On the other hand, if the access is protecting indigenous heritage that has been declared by the Minister, that may be another issue, but it most certainly wouldn't be the whole Calvert Range.
Access to the CSR itself is not being stopped, of course even in the wildest reading of their statements.

Greg (NSW) wrote on 13-03-07:
Do not lock us out it is our country too.

Ray (QLD) wrote on 13-03-07:
Eric I do not agree with any form of licencing as this will probably be manipulated to exclude some. I do however agree with a FREE permit system as an interim measure to get definitive numbers of visits and numbers in groups visiting such areas and then and only then should a decision be taken to introduce any form of control measures if indeed they are needed.I have been fortunate enough to visit Calvert Range and other sites on the Canning along with many other sites in OUR country and do not agree that it should be locked away to only be visited by priveledged groups and in that I mean politicians and persons not indiginous to that area.e.g. why should someone from say Qld or S.A. be able to tour such places when you or I or my grandchildren be excluded. Incidentally my Grand Children are sixth generation Australians and four of those previous generations have been to war on behalf of this country.

Peter (SA) wrote on 14-03-07:
Surely the only way to full reconciliation is thru awareness and understanding of each others' cultures. Without that awareness and understanding, we are left with an 'Us and Them' animosity that will fester and create great issues in due course. 'Black' Australians locking up large sections of what is arguably rightly seen as culturally significant areas to 'White' Australia will only foster that animosity. Surely a sensitive and managed method of maintaining access and opening these areas now being jealously closed as 'ours' by the 'traditional owners' will help foster a shared understanding by ALL AUSTRALIANS of the culture that preceeded and provided such a significant basis for what we AUSTRALIANS are and have today.
There can be no 'Ours' or 'Their's' in the successful Australia of the future without a solid grounding in awareness and understanding on both sides; and right now they ARE warring sides, albeit not at open war, YET! But the animosity on both sides is growing, with discontent at what the 'Others' have or are getting being the root cause. Locking areas up and keeping them away from either side will only serve to increase the animosity and I suspect that it will eventually result in actual violence. By developing a workable method that addresses the shared cultural significance of such areas, as well as the generational and traditional significance, and the unique relationship with the land that entails, WE AUSTRALIANS can work together to forge a greater place than that we have been left as our heritage. But without that approach, we are destined to follow other warring cultures, and one, usually the older, less prolific, and smaller culture, will eventually die out.
A license system may well be the answer, but unless it addresses the need to allow relatively unfettered access in exchange for a sharing of knowledge and historical significance, it too, is doomed to fail. We must develop a method that doesn't unfairly restrict any Australian from accessing both the area and the knowledge, it cannot be in any way related or be seen to be similar to the current 'permit' system that so many see as being corrupted by the capitalistic bureaucracy and a restrictive limitation on who can visit.
I note the call for not accepting offensive submissions. That it has been felt necessary to include such a note only serves to highlight that the current method of using a 'permits and licensing' approach to 'sharing australia' is not working, and it is feeding the growing discontent and animosity that I fear will eventually erupt. Please see this submission as a plea for a SHARED FUTURE for ALL AUSTRALIANS, as our current methods of 'sharing' are not being seen as such! Thank you for this opportunity, and if I can help in any way, do not hesitate to contact me at the above email address.

David (QLD) wrote on 15-03-07:
These sites should not be resitricted to commercial operators abiding to appropriate land care and site care principles.

Exprim wrote on 15-03-07:
The Canning Stock Route off sites should not be restricted to only tour operators, the same permit system should apply to all. The WDLAC research committee is carefully reviewing all options in the interest of all. Your comments are being taken into consideration, we do make a difference.
If any are interested in finding out about the land title act of the region, here is link for you: http://www.atns.net.au/biogs/A000350b.htm

Jeff (VIC) wrote on 20-03-07:
DO NOT lock things up just for operators to AUCTION to the highest group of visitors !
Create jobs and give Indigenous people the opportunity to live on or near the sites to help look after the sights and talk with visitors. The unmaintained , vandalised information plaques and boards have nothing on a real person that knows the area.
I'm even happy to pay a national or state permit 1 or 3 year? to contribute to the system and give me access to national parks and reserves.

Peter wrote on 20-03-07:
I am going to be quite blunt here but some things probably need to be said. No disrespect is intended. Permit systems lead to disrespect of Aboriginal people by the many of users to these areas. It goes to the heart of 'us and them' issues and will do nothing to build respect. I do not subscribe to 'us and them' issues but as a long term National Park Ranger (having worked with Aboriginal people for years) well and truly know they exist. Education on the route is the answer. Build respect with users, give them information about this fantastic cultural heritage (empower them to be carers as well) but do not throw up permit barriers. Aboriginal people need to be 'there to greet travellers', show them they care, explanations need to be given and these often unkowing travellers will go away with a warm fuzzy feeling. If permits are paid for and many travellers turn up only to be asked to pay for guides, pay for camping in this wilderness, etc. they will go away with lesser respect (this sort of thing occurs worldwide and it often seems indigenous peoples fall into this trap quite often). The question is 'how do we send away our travellers with something learned, their need to care and to rave about. There is a real respect gap between many Aboriginal people and many other travellers in Australia (I see these people all the time and we all know what they start to comment on when out of earshot). This is what we all need to change and I urge you to reconsider this permit fiasco and find resources to 'encourage and educate' travellers in all aspects of respecting indigenous peoples and their heritage places but please dont restrict them behind and permit system. Why dont we begin to think outside the (permit restriction) circle and invite travellers in (its not as if you will be swamped with the tourist hordes on the Canning), show them why these areas are what they are and ask them to spread the word (of respect for these places). We may discover a behaviour change in time, permits and restrictions will never do that, they never have so far.

Greg (NSW) wrote on 20-03-07:
I haven't been able to get to travel the CSR as yet but it is on my to do list.
Where there is evidence of damage caused by overuse / negligence / vandalism etc I am in favour of restrictions and a Licensing System, but not just for the sake of restricting peoples enjoyment and access to this or any other area.

Kevin (NSW) wrote on 20-03-07:
"The CSR remains a public track and extends to 5km on each side." This is an appropriate level of general access for this remote area and should remain. Given the increasing numbers of tourists visiting these fragile areas it is timely that changes be introduced to protect and manage important ecological and cultural sites [as has already occurred elsewhere in Australia] for the future. I suggest that a management model that allows a proscribed number of annual visits to off-track sites should be considered. This number would include a mix of both licensed operators and private groups/individuals with a suitable fee structure and booking system.
I am not sure who the Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council is or what its policies and expertise in such matters are.
Finally, who decided the proposal as presented should come into effect with these guidelines at this time?
Just my humble opinions.

George (VIC) wrote on 23-03-07:
We are frequent travellers and love this country with all our hearts! we do never ever enter privat properties and consider aboriginal land as such. Still as its pard of the country and its history there should be the possibility to see places if the 'owners' agree to your visit and invite you to there propertie.

Gregory (VIC) wrote on 29-03-07:
I travelled the CSR last year as a tag a long vehicle. A highlight of the trip was the visit to the Calvert ranges with its amazing aboriginal art. I disagree with the permit system because of the implications:
a. Some will be permitted and others will not.
b. There will be a fee structure and associated administration.
c. To be effective permits will be policed.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has made the financial and emotional committment to travel the CSR would not respect the sites along the track.

Laylee (QLD) wrote on 12-04-07:
We missed the Calvert Ranges last year, not wanting to tow our camper over the soft sand. Never for a minute did we think we would be banned from visiting it in future. I was unaware any damage had been done to their sites. We at least clean up what we take with - we don't leave our campsites like a pigsty, which is what the aboriginal communities appear to do, with rubbish strewn everywhere. Hard to believe they love the land when they constantly rubbish it! With their rights come their responsibilities, but it seems to be one-sided to me!!

Robert & Elizabeth (QLD) wrote on 16-04-07:
We have not visited the Calvert Rang but have traveled the major part of the Canning Stock Route and intend to repeat the journey again later this year. We do not agree with either the permit system or the restriction to these sites. The Canning Stock Route is a remote area and as such is less likely to be visited by mindless 'vandals' who trash everything in sight. By all means educate us all about the why these sites are 'sacred' and must be preserved. Many 4WD clubs have been involved in restoring wells along the route, and allowing visitors unimpeded access hopefully will encourage others to respect the heritage value of the sites for both the 'original' occupiers of the land and those who came later. Over 20 years ago we applied for a permit to visit an area in Central Australia and, despite mailed applications and two applications in person were refused a permit with no reason given. This left us feeling bitter, angry and frustrated. A similar situation occurred last year when our proposed route, for which we had permits, was closed due to rain and we were denied permits to travel an alternative route. We consider we are clean, decent law-abiding Australians and when one reads in 4WD magazines of such places of interest it is extremely galling to find that suddenly a permit is necessary and there is the chance that this can be denied us. In other words, there is the potential for the permit system to be manipulated or abused. Another difficulty with permits is that firm dates for travel have to be provided and, as anyone who follows the weather patterns and road closures knows, it is often difficult to predict the exact dates one will be traveling in the area.

Peter and john (QLD) wrote on 18-04-07:
Should the Canning Stock Route sites be restricted? Access - no but any particul;ar paintings or sacred sites shouldbe fenced off and protected.
And do you agree with a license system? yes, if it is within the reachof the average family.

Rick (QLD) wrote on 03-05-07:
I agree with a permit system but only open to those willing to travel as individuals or within tour groups that are restricted by individual vehicle weight (ie no 4wd tour buses) vehicle numbers and people on board.

Anthony (NSW) wrote on 16-05-07:
I agree with the restrictions and permit system. Most people using the CSR are respectful of the fact that the track passes through Martu Native Title but I have seen some terrible abuse of the right of public access we have. Apart from the rubbish left behind, side tracks created in the search for fire wood that lead others off the track to uneventful results. A system that makes us think a little more thoughtfully about the land we pass through must be a good thing.

Rosie (VIC) wrote on 24-05-07:
I agree with the propsed system. However I think there will be a couple of problems. The first being - how do they propse to enforce the permit, when you don't need one to travel the CSR. You technically only need one if you visit areas off the 'easement'. The second - Which body is going to administer the policing of the permit?

Mike (SA) wrote on 24-05-07:
I find the constant restrictions and permits to be blatant money grabbing on the part of ALCouncils and totally offensive to the freedoms Australians once enjoyed.
Whilst I acknowledge that we should respect the past and admire the cultural significance of the areas we travel I believe that restricting persons based on race, colour or creed to be wrong and discriminatory.
If, by definition a site of burial is sacred, and we as Europeans cannot visit said areas, then should it not be fair that cemeteries for colonials should be off limits to those not of Euro descent?
It follows logic.. Albeit a twisted one.
Or that 'white fella' technology etc, should not be available to those of indigenous background and 'black fella' teachings should be only for those indigenous heritage?
I have many aboriginal friends here (I live rural SA) and many of them disagree with land access restrictions, but ALL agree with respect for the sites.. I too agree on this.

Bill (VIC) wrote on 01-06-07:
Nothing wrong with a permit system for entry into aboriginal land. However to charge for such a permit only brings out the Them and Us syndrome which the last thing that should be fostered. All other permit areas in australia to enter aboriginal land do not incur fees why should the CSR be different?

Frank & Helen (WA) wrote on 01-06-07:
Under what regulations will Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council police permits? Why can't Mardu people look after the place if their claim is for real ? Permits will be a waste of time unless there is a gate keeper to gather stats.

Jim (ACT) wrote on 04-06-07:
I have no objection to there being restrictions on the CSR due to the significant number of irresponsible travellers throughout the outback. On the other hand I strongly support the development of a permit system which enables legitimate and responsible travellers to access the more interesting sites. While I can understand the traditional owners wishing to limit access to areas such as the Calvert Range this should be possible for properly organised groups, not only commercial operators but also accredited 4WD Clubs, and the need to employ a guide at a reasonable charge would seem quite appropriate.

Phil (WA) wrote on 05-06-07:
The blanket prohibition of almost all the spectacular sites on or near the CSR is disappointing. Its almost like gong to Europe and not being able to see the Eifell Tower, Mona Lisa, St Peter's in Rome, West Minster Abbey, etc etc. Makes you think twice about going.
Some consideration needs to be given to allow access. We travelers want to see & learn more about aboriginal culture, locking it off does little to enhance the travelers journey and leaves us feeling cheated.
Why don't the Martu embrace the opportunity and allow some access and provide travelers with information about their sites and why they are so important. After all we are all Australians.

Christine (SA) wrote on 07-06-07:
I have been fortunate enough to have travelled very widely in the WA desert areas over a number of years. I, like most other travellers have always treated these areas with the upmost respect for culture and the enviroment, and feel more than a little offended that these areas which where once open to all are being closed down and or restricted to a few. At the bottom line, regardless of race or culture we are all Australians and should benefit equally from the bounties this beautiful country has to offer.
I feel I am now losing my freedom to travel and that my sons are losing their birth right to share country in the open way I have enjoyed for many years. The sad thing that has come out of these type of restrictions has been a lot of badwill which has cause an ugly rift between tradional people and the city folk. I have seen this situation increasing over the years and I have been greatly saddened by it, and powerless to turn the tide of opinion that now seems to be running so strongly against all issues relating to Native Title and progressive development for the traditional custodians of country.
Please, in the interest of having a national populated by one people, Australians, do all you can to keep access totally open to all. Its those lucky people who like myself, have spent considerable time in the desert regions, and the specific areas now under threat of exclusion, who are your best ambassadors. Not being of aboriginal desent, I see the country and feel the country differently from the tradional custodians, I may see culture, and admire culture, but I may not understand what I see, so there is a real need for openness on both sides,as only with inclusiveness will understanding come.
I am getting old now, but still have a few trips left in me. My love of country can not be put into words, this why the hurt I now feel is so intense.
Respectfully yours
Christine

Colin (VIC) wrote on 07-06-07:
As one who will be in this area later this year,i was looking forward to visiting these sites.I don't think it is right that these areas be too restricted,They are there for all to appreciate.Ok they are "sacred"sites but too many of these areas are "sacred"until the mighty dollar changes hands and all of a sudden there ok to visit. The old system seemed to working ok until someone could see a chance to take CONTROL.I feel it is not the local people behind this but somebody with there own interests at heart. PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE-- for all to enjoy--

Colin (NSW) wrote on 09-06-07:
I am not in favour of permits for the Canning Stock Route area or for any parts of Australia which were previously accessible to all Australians.
Our government has rightly made it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, and permits and restrictions that apply to whites only,simply because of their race, are surely illegal.