Uluru has three claims to fame.

1. It is the largest (non-subterranean) rock in the world.
2. It has a dingo population which is rumored to occasionally snatch nine week old babies.
3. The local Aborigines (claiming to be the 'traditional owners') have put up a sign asking tourists not to climb it.

Some have pointed out that the apparent religious objection the Aborigines seems to have been created quite recently - the Aborigines were apparently quite happy to show the first white explorers how to climb it. Regardless, a short thought experiment is in order.

If people want to respect the ownership of the 'traditional owners', then why don't they just give the entire rock (back) to the local Aborigines? If the Aborigines actually owned it they would have the right to encourage climbing, ban climbing, or charge whatever they liked to allow people to climb the rock.

Given the option of charging tourists money to climb the rock (and keeping the money), how long does the reader believe that the signs discouraging people climbing out of 'religious respect' would remain?

This is yet another problem created by the tragedy of the commons.