For avid climber and founder of ClimbingQTs, Melissa Edwards, the struggle over the future of climbing mecca Dyurrite/Arapiles is a deeply personal one. This is Mel’s home, where they fell in love and foster community. It’s more meaningful than just their favourite climbing haunt, and the issues surrounding the recently released Dyurrite Cultural Landscape Management Plan run deeper than just climbers vs culture.

 

Until I found my chosen home in the climbing community of Natimuk, Victoria, my life was shaped by constant movement and upheaval. So when news came of planned mass closures of climbing routes at Dyurrite/Arapiles, without consultation of that climbing community, it felt like I couldn’t escape my personal and family history of displacement. Why is this relevant to the discussion surrounding Dyurrite/Arapiles? Let me explain.

In Search of Belonging

My mother left South Korea in her 20s, in 1985 after marrying my dad, who was travelling from the UK. He’d been making his way through parts of Asia, planning to eventually head to Australia, but as he likes to joke, ‘She trapped me’, cutting his solo travels short.

She’s the daughter of Korean War (1950–1953) survivors, and while I don’t know much about either of my parents’ lives before I was born, I carry the intergenerational trauma of loss, displacement, and profound societal upheaval. These experiences left lasting scars, perpetuating a cycle of avoidance, secrecy, and silence.

My dad, though from a different background, also faced significant challenges growing up. I deeply admire and look up to both of them. They’ve achieved so much to build a life for themselves, and have always prioritised me and my sister in the best way they knew how.

However, this dedication often meant that, for the first 15 years of my life, we were in a constant search for ‘a better life’.

This is important to share because it explains why Natimuk, Victoria (population 514) has become so significant to me. I grew up moving from country to country, attending over ten different schools in multiple languages, constantly transitioning between communities.

I was always searching for a sense of belonging but never quite finding it. With little to no ties to extended family and a childhood marred by bullying – mocked for my ‘slanty’ Korean eyes or singled out as the only ‘white’ person in a sea of Asians – I grew accustomed to being othered.

These experiences left a lasting mark, making adulthood a challenge as I grappled with identity and connection. While I’m incredibly proud of my mixed Korean-English heritage, I struggle to feel deeply connected to a single place, culture, or set of traditions. Much of that connection feels distant or fragmented.

Seven years ago, I discovered climbing at a city gym, and in 2018, I founded ClimbingQTs. Before the pandemic, I remained a dedicated gym rat, but toward its end, I moved to Natimuk to be closer to Dyurrite/Mount Arapiles as a budding trad climber.

 

 

I quickly fell in love with climbing in nature – the adventure, the mental challenges, the skill required, and above all, the peace it brought me.

While the natural beauty initially drew me in, it was the residents of Natimuk who convinced me to stay.

A couple of years ago, I met the love of my life at the Pines Campground. Weeks later, we grovelled up an offwidth together, and we’ve been inseparable ever since. I proposed to him while hanging from an oversized picture frame that captures the mountain from the edge of town.

 

 

Just a few months ago, we realised a dream – buying our first home together, a beautifully renovated weatherboard house, with a view of the mount.

It’s not just the proximity to world-class climbing or the affordable housing that keeps me here. It’s the deep connection I feel to this place – the landscape, the people, and the community we’ve built.

For someone with such a fractured relationship to family, birthplace, and cultural heritage, Natimuk has filled a void. For the first time in my life, I don’t feel like running away.

When people tell me to ‘just go somewhere else, climb somewhere else’ because ‘it’s not your country’ or ‘not your land’, it cuts deep. These words reopen the scars of intergenerational wounds and remind me of what I lacked growing up – the sense of belonging and a community to call my own.

This region is the ancestral land of five Aboriginal clans: the Wotjobaluk, Wergaia, Jupagalk, Jadawadjali, and Jaadwa peoples. Before I ever set foot here, they belonged to this land.

Today it has become the chosen home to many people, some of us ‘lost boys’, like myself – much like the boys in Peter Pan who aren’t tied by bloodlines but instead find belonging in the land itself.

We’re connected through the healing, joy, love, and meaning it’s brought us. So what troubles me most, isn’t simply the potential loss of significant access to climbing, but the invalidation of my connection to this place and the notion that my voice is unworthy of being heard.

Read more: Mount Arapiles is More Than Just a Rock Climber’s Mecca

The Issue Runs Deeper Than Climbing vs Culture

Some argue that climbers should simply accept the Dyurrite Cultural Landscape Management Plan as it is. But this overlooks the importance of questioning the processes behind such decisions. Blindly accepting a flawed plan sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked power, which can harm everyone.

Parks Victoria has a duty to develop transparent and accountable management plans that prioritise the voices of Traditional Custodians while ensuring equitable access to nature-based activities. Regrettably, the current draft, which was based on an outdated 1991 document, falls far short of these standards and is wholly unfit for purpose.

For example, the plan restricts bushwalking to designated tracks, of which there are only three within the park, none leading to climbing areas. This makes it impossible to access permitted crags or descend from climbs without breaking the rules.

 

 

Moreover, the plan neglects to address critical environmental concerns, such as the protection of threatened species like Skeleton Fork-ferns and the endangered Arapiles mint-bush. Neither is there any mention of the Peregrine falcon, Mallee fowl, or Red-tailed black cockatoos which hold significant conservation value.

The draft plan also suffers from a fragmented approach. The total area of Arapiles block is 1500Ha, whilst the total area of Mount Arapiles-Tooan State Park is approx 7500Ha, meaning the entire Arapiles block represents just 20% of the park, and of this roughly 10% would be considered climbing areas.

That means by only surveying climbing areas, almost 90% of the park is left unexamined. This not only undermines conservation efforts but also introduces sampling bias, resulting in incomplete data and flawed conclusions.

The proposed closures are also designated to climbing areas, none of which are comparable in size or scope of routes. For example, one area ‘Lizard Procrastination’ has four routes and another area, ‘the Organ Pipes’ has 66 routes.

Instead of a nuanced approach to closing climbs that are within proximity of values, entire climbing areas have been subject to huge blanket closures.

Read more: Numerous Rock Climbing Sites at Mount Arapiles Set to Close

 

 

When it comes to cultural heritage, the approach taken is both narrow and problematic. If only climbing areas were surveyed for the recent amendment, that leaves many caves and cliffs with potential archaeological significance unexamined.

It begs the question, what priorities guided the scope of this project? Discovering cultural heritage or finding evidence of harm? While it’s understandable that archaeologists will focus on areas with perceived risk to values or archaeological potential, this limited scope overlooks broader aspects of the Dyurrite landscape.

Modern climbing has a 60-year history at the mount, demonstrating its low environmental impact while contributing positively to both the local economy and the landscape.

 

Climbing’s Ongoing Effect on Community and Country

Following Geoff Durham’s visit to Arapiles on behalf of the Victorian National Parks Association in the late 1980s, it was proposed that Natimuk climbers start up a ‘Friends’ group to be part of the Victorian Environment Friends Network.

Louise Shepherd took up this suggestion with enthusiasm and still runs Friends of Arapiles today. Since then, other volunteer groups, including Crags Stewards Victoria and Cliff Care, have also emerged in an effort to conserve and improve the Arapiles environment.

All of these groups have undertaken decades of volunteer work including planting trees, removing invasive weeds, eradicating feral bees, and building erosion-preventing stone steps.

Climbers have actively contributed to conservation efforts, assisted archaeologists in protecting cultural heritage, and avoided Peregrine falcon nesting sites, with the bird population remaining stable for 40 years.

Claims that climbers have degraded the habitat or damaged cultural sites are unsupported and contradict the evidence of their long-standing positive impact.

Parks Victoria is Letting Down Both Sides

When Parks Victoria chose to release the draft plan at 5pm on the eve of the US election and a Victorian public holiday – just one month after assuring Climbing Victoria that the plan was far from ready – it raised serious questions about their motives.

Was this incompetence, or a rushed release timed to coincide with treaty celebrations the following week? Whatever the motives, it has resulted in a plan rejected by the public and embarrassing the Labor Government’s attempts to ‘close the gap’.

The sudden release of the plan was accompanied by significant inaccuracies, including claims about the extent of climbing closures. To be clear, 63% of climbs are proposed to be closed under the draft plan, far from the ‘majority open’ narrative being promoted. Of the 44 highly accessible, beginner level routes, 88.6% (39/44) will be closed, leaving a total of only five designated accessible routes at Arapiles that are suitable for people of all abilities and experience levels, including people with disability.

Even worse, 100% (7/7) of beginner level multi-pitch routes at highly accessible climbing areas will be closed. This means little to no routes will remain for guiding school-aged kids and beginner trad climbers will be pushed to test their skills on more challenging and dangerous routes.

 

 

With only 24 days to provide feedback limited to signage, maps, and communication (not the plan itself), it’s no wonder climbers reacted with urgency, scrambling to grasp the full impact it would have on how we connect with the mountain.

This plan has done nothing but foster division and erode trust. The actions taken by Parks Victoria are not conducive to reconciliation and treaty.

Parks also misrepresented the Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network’s (GWRN) engagement with the local Aboriginal land council, Barengi Gadjin Land Council (BGLC), as ‘climber and community consultation’.

GWRN does not advocate for rock climbing, instead engages with Traditional Custodians and recreational user groups to promote reconciliation. GWRN engaged solely with BGLC and never engaged with Parks Victoria on the plan.

Does the plan comply with human rights?

If we look through the lens of legislative obligations, it’s unclear if Parks Victoria has acted compatibly with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (Victoria 2006) and its requirement to allow freedom of movement within Victoria.

The act requires public authorities, such as Parks, to comply with the charter and give proper consideration to human rights when making decisions.

Section 12 of the Charter states, ‘Freedom of Movement – Every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter or leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.’

Additionally, section 19.2 states, Aboriginal persons hold distinct cultural rights to ‘maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs.’

So with this in mind, where the rights of one group are in conflict with the rights of a separate group, section 7.2 of the Charter explains, ‘A human right may be subject under law only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and taking into account all relevant factors including – (e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve.’

Simply put, this means that rights can only be limited in certain circumstances if it’s reasonable, necessary, justified, and proportionate. There’s legislation in place in Victoria and resources for public sector workers to help guide how this can be done in a way that’s likely to be accepted by the whole community.

However, with the knowledge that Parks Victoria hasn’t consulted with the public (e.g Climbing Victoria, the peak body for recreational outdoor climbing in the state) or public authorities affected (e.g Horsham Rural City Council), it’s possible that the current plan doesn’t meet the obligations of this legislation.

Between the blanket bans based on arbitrary climbing areas, the closure of routes that disproportionately impacts marginalised communities, and narrow scope of surveys conducted to an outdated plan, there’s enough reason to question how this plan has come about and advocate for something much better.

 

Collaboration Needs to Come From All Sides

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: A guide for Victorian public sector workers, details a step-by-step guide aimed at achieving an outcome that respects cultural heritage, ensures responsible land stewardship, and maintains access to nature, by fostering collaboration between Traditional Custodians, local organisations, and community representatives.

A prime example is a stone’s throw away in Gariwerd/Grampians on the left-hand side of Taipan Wall. Initially closed due to the rediscovery of quarrying, GWRN worked closely with Traditional Custodians to identify where climbing routes intersected with cultural values.

They proposed practical solutions, such as adjusting the starting points of certain routes. The implementation of these adjustments resulted in 94% (63/67 routes) of the left-hand side of Taipan Wall being reopened.

As Louise so perfectly put it, ‘This successful negotiation should have been the template for a similar fine-grained approach to all of climbing routes at Arapiles/Dyurrite. Instead, Parks Victoria abrogated their responsibilities to engage with local communities despite their obligation to do so under IUCN best practice guidelines for protected areas’.

Collaboration and allyship are essential, even within the framework of Aboriginal self-determination.

For non-Aboriginal people like myself, particularly those who carry the weight of intergenerational trauma or have faced racism, discrimination, minority stress, and lateral violence, these experiences can offer a unique perspective.

They enhance our capacity to empathise with hypervigilance and serve as a foundation for forging respectful, enduring partnerships with Aboriginal communities. I firmly believe we can work together to honour cultural heritage while ensuring Aboriginal people meet their own social, cultural, and economic needs through a process rooted in mutual choice, respect, and shared commitment.

I’ve personally made efforts over a number of years to foster a relationship like this, unfortunately I’ve been met only with either silence or anger. Parks Victoria was in a position to help build that bridge, but their conduct has pushed our communities further apart.

Where to from here?

Parks Victoria is currently under government review, facilitated by the advisory firm KordaMentha, board members have had their terms slashed until the end of January 2025 and there’s widespread speculation that the review could lead to Parks Victoria being folded into the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action (DEECA).

While the potential dissolution of Parks may not evoke much regret, it’s essential that we remain steadfast in holding the next in line accountable.

Whether it remains a project with Parks, or lands on a table at DEECA, the only sustainable path forward lies in genuine, collaborative consultation between all key stakeholders.

The outcome of this process must be a comprehensive, purpose-driven plan, one that respects, protects, and celebrates Aboriginal cultural heritage while championing responsible land stewardship no matter who it’s conducted by, ensuring equitable access for all, and fostering the deep connection to nature that underpins belonging, health, and wellbeing for everyone who visits this land, whether they’ve been connected to this land since time immemorial, are passing through or putting down roots.

 

In the four years I’ve lived here, I’ve witnessed how this place can nurture and inspire people from all walks of life, how it can heal the soul, bridge a gap between generations, and offer a sense of home to anyone.

This isn’t an idealised image of Natimuk or the mount, it’s simply a reflection of what I’ve experienced here.

The sense of community, respect, and connection to the land is genuine, as are the healing and inspiration this place offers.

I believe we’re capable of deep care, thoughtful collaboration, and mutual respect, grounded in a shared love for this unique and remarkable place, and together we can achieve an outcome that’s accepted by the whole community.

 

Images supplied by Melissa Edwards

At We Are Explorers we take great pride in presenting content that is fact checked, well-researched, and based on both real world experience and reliable sources. As a B-Corp we uphold high ethical standards and strive to create content that is inclusive, with an an increased focus on underserved communities, Indigenous Australians, and threats to our environment. You can read all about it in our Editorial Standards.