Mount Arapiles has long held a near-mythical status in the climbing world. Each year, climbers travel vast distances to stand beneath its walls. Drawn by its history, quality, and reputation as one of the most significant climbing destinations globally.
Over the Easter long weekend, that draw was clear. Climbers arrived from across Australia alongside international visitors. For many, Arapiles was the primary reason for visiting the region. One climber described undertaking a 28-hour round trip, with the majority of their travel budget spent locally in Natimuk and Horsham.
But for a number of those visitors, the weekend did not unfold as expected.
Instead, multiple climbers reported confrontations with rangers from the Barengi Gadjin Land Council (BGLC) — interactions that disrupted climbs, altered plans, and, in several cases, created situations they say compromised safety on the wall.
Confrontations While Climbing
A consistent theme across multiple accounts is the timing of these interactions. Climbers were not approached at the base of climbs, in car parks, or in campgrounds — places where conversations can happen safely. Instead, several report being engaged mid-climb, or while actively belaying.
In one incident on Easter Friday, a climber was partway up the first pitch of Hurricane Lamp Cracks when their belayer noticed movement behind them. Turning around, they saw a group of four to five BGLC representatives standing nearby, watching.
After a brief exchange, the belayer asked whether the area was off-limits.
The response was direct: yes — and the climbers were instructed to come down.
Acting on that instruction, the belayer immediately called up to their partner — who was already around 20 metres off the ground — and told them to descend.
The belayer recounts:
“The time was about 10:40am or so. I was belaying the first pitch of Hurricane Lamp Cracks… I heard movement behind me that didn’t get any closer, so I assumed another group of climbers was approaching. When I heard movement again that wasn’t getting closer, I looked back to see 4–5 of the indigenous land council standing there watching.
I gave them a wave and said hi… then I said, ‘This area isn’t off limits is it?’ And then the guy with the beard responded ‘Yes it is.’
Me: ‘Oh shit.’ I called up for my leader to stop… and then called up to my leader that she needed to descend.”
For the climber on the wall, this created an immediate safety concern:
“My partner called out that I had to come down, and when I turned around all I could see was men down there near him… But yes, I felt very at risk down climbing off. I was about 20m up at that point.”
In a separate part of her account, she described the broader impact of the situation:
“As a female climber I found it very disturbing and threatening to turn around while climbing and find unknown men who are clearly not fellow climbers watching me and my belayer from the bushes. There’s no world in which that doesn’t raise a red flag.”
After returning to the car park and rechecking signage — which they had already read earlier that morning — the pair concluded they had not been climbing in a restricted or culturally sensitive area. They attempted to return and seek clarification, but the group had already left.
That raises a serious question: how well do these rangers understand the boundaries of the areas they are tasked with protecting?
In this case, climbers were instructed to descend from height — in a way that increased risk — despite not being in an area subject to a “keep off” request.
Signage Installed Mid-Climb
At Tiger Wall, another climber described arriving to find no signage indicating restrictions before beginning their route. While their partner was on the wall, a BGLC ranger walked up, placed a metal “keep off” sign between belayers, and began photographing the climbers.
The timing of this interaction created confusion. The climber later reflected that the situation made it appear as though they had knowingly ignored restrictions, when the sign had not been present when they started climbing.
The same party reported a second interaction the following day, again involving a ranger taking photos while they were climbing. Although the ranger left when asked, the climber said the experience had a direct impact:
“My partner was pretty upset, even though it was an easy climb, he had to get lowered off on his last piece as he just couldn’t focus, so I had to take over”
A Pattern of Disruption
Other climbers described a broader pattern across the weekend.
Rangers were seen driving slowly through the carparks taking down number plates, observing climbers and vehicles, and spending extended periods around popular climbing areas. Some climbers reported being watched from the base of climbs or from nearby bushland, while others described verbal comments directed toward climbers on routes.
In one instance, climbers reported being told that infringements could be issued, despite current “please keep off” requests not being legally enforceable restrictions.
Another climber described the overall experience:
“Highly distracting and adrenaline-inducing to what’s already a dangerous sport.”
Impact on Safety
Across all accounts, the central concern is not simply access — but safety.
Climbers described losing focus while leading, being pressured to descend mid-route, and making decisions under stress. In some cases, climbers abandoned routes they had planned and prepared for; in others, they ended their climbing days early.
Climbing relies heavily on mental composure. Focus, calm decision-making, and situational awareness are fundamental to managing risk. Disruptions at height — particularly those involving uncertainty or perceived pressure — can increase the likelihood of mistakes.
As one climber put it:
“If you take the mental part away from climbing, we’d all just play golf.”
Trips Cut Short, Plans Changed
For many, the impact extended beyond individual climbs.
Climbers who had travelled long distances reported abandoning objectives, changing plans, and reconsidering future visits. Some chose to leave early or skip additional climbing destinations on their return journey due to uncertainty around access and the nature of interactions over the weekend.
Given the volume of interstate and international visitors, these decisions carry broader implications for the region — where climbers traditionally contribute to local businesses through accommodation, food, and services.
Communication Breakdown
Many climbers emphasised that they had made genuine efforts to respect known “keep off” requests and avoid culturally sensitive areas. Several also noted positive and respectful interactions with Indigenous visitors at Arapiles.
However, there was a consistent sense that communication leading into the weekend had been inadequate.
Climbers reported:
- Limited or unclear online information
- Signage appearing after climbing had already begun
- No centralised or easily accessible updates in campgrounds
- No clear explanation of why specific areas were sensitive
One climber summarised:
“People travelled a very long way with one understanding, and then were confronted mid-climb as part of an ‘education’ process.”
Accountability and the Path Forward
The events of the Easter long weekend raise important questions about how access management is being implemented on the ground.
While the protection of culturally significant areas is widely acknowledged as important, the accounts from Arapiles point to a critical issue:
Intervening with climbers while they are on route — particularly in ways that create confusion or pressure — can introduce real and immediate safety risks.
In the Hurricane Lamp Cracks incident, climbers were instructed to descend from height despite not being in a restricted area. That outcome highlights the need for clear understanding, consistent communication, and careful judgement in how and when interactions occur.
At a minimum, climbers say this requires:
- Accurate, up-to-date information before peak periods
- Clear and consistent signage
- Engagement that does not compromise safety
Mount Arapiles remains a place of shared significance — culturally, historically, and globally within the climbing community.
For those who travelled far to be there over Easter, the expectation was simple: clarity, respect, and the ability to climb safely. The accounts from the weekend suggest that, in several cases, those expectations were not met — and that greater accountability will be essential moving forward.
It’s important to note that the BGLC rangers have only been in their roles at Mt Arapiles for a few months and may not yet have received sufficient training on how to engage with the public around these issues. Throughout February and March, climber interactions were largely positive, with rangers described as friendly and approachable. The shift in behaviour over the Easter period may not reflect their usual approach.
Further training would likely be beneficial—both in helping rangers better understand the boundaries of exclusion zones and in supporting clear, respectful communication with the climbing community.
Want to join the conversation?
Jump over to the Vertical Life Mag socials and have your say!
More Climbing Access Articles:
A Boundary Line at Bundaleer: Grampians Climbing Access
Climbers Push Back on Arapiles Bans, Citing Economic Ruin
Review of DJSIR Data & Analytics’ Study
2021 Economic Assessment of Rock Climbing at the Grampians National Park and Mount Arapiles
President of ACAV arrested over stolen Parks Victoria cameras in the Grampians
From Conflict to Collaboration: Parks Victoria’s Vision for Arapiles
