13 Dead on Everest

I don't think the important issue regarding the Sherpas has anything to do with whether westerners are good or bad mountaineers, and whether they really can claim to climb a mountain that is paved with ropes, ladders, preset camps, etc. Everyone knows the real score. That debate has been beaten to death -- it is a waste of time. The commercialization of Everest is a horse that left the barn years ago.

The important issue is fair compensation. Being a Sherpa is perhaps the most dangerous occupation on the planet. Is $6,000/season really fair compensation? The fact that it might be 10 times the average income in Nepal is, in my opinion, irrelevant (it's the same justification used to pay pennies to people to sew our clothes). I think their compensation should be commensurate with the risk. If we can pay Alaskan fisherman $40,000/season to risk their necks to supply Red Lobster with crab legs, surely climbers should pay these people for the inordinate risk they take on their behalf.

It's easy. Just raise the price. Wanna climb Everest on the backs of the Sherpas? Pony up, say, $100,000. People will pay, and the guide services can then pay the Sherpas what they are really worth. Provide them with life and health insurance. Pay the true cost of your adventure. Then, no one can claim exploitation. Until then, these people will die or be injured and the westerners who take advantage of them will share the blame.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Just curious how much time you've spent in the himalayas? I'm guessing none. Maybe less.

Spoken like a true mountaineer....

Since we all know there is no experience that matters outside of the himalayas.

Usually the person making statements like this are those with the least experience in these matters. It's the old, "I have nothing substantial to add since I have never been above timberline, so instead ill try to counter with assumptions and irrelavent questions," defense.

Let the adults talk Mark

ChefMattThaner wrote: Spoken like a true mountaineer.... Since we all know there is no experience that matters outside of the himalayas. Usually the person making statements like this are those with the least experience in these matters. It's the old, "I have nothing substantial to add since I have never been above timberline, so instead ill try to counter with assumptions and irrelavent questions," defense. Let the adults talk Mark

I hate to say it, but it really is hard to understand the climbing culture in the Himalaya unless you have climbed there. I had climbed extensively in the continental US, in Alaska, and in South America before I took a trip to climb in Nepal. I scoffed at the whole idea of Sherpa supported climbing, the whole notion of using porters, fixed lines, pre-stocked camps and all the things that armchair alpinist like to make fun of. What I can tell you is that it is a completely different scale and culture. Where alpine ascents in S. America are relatively easy and self supported climbing and load hauling in Alaska are the norm, it just isn't as practical or accepted in the HImalaya. Not saying that it should be that way, but really that is the way it is. In reality, for me and the majority of Western climbers I have met, few of us would make it up the major HImalayan peaks without this type of siege-supported climbing. Unfortunately, it is the burden of the Sherpa workers to do the brunt of the work and support. I don't know what the answer is or how to fix the problem, but it's easy to scoff at the average 8000m mountaineer when you've never been in the country or climbed anything that high.

csproul wrote: In reality, for me and the majority of Western climbers I have met, few of us would make it up the major HImalayan peaks without this type of siege-supported climbing. Unfortunately, it is the burden of the Sherpa workers to do the brunt of the work and support.

This is exactly my point, thank you.

Most men were not meant to stand atop that mountain. Mountaineering is all about rising to the level of the mountain. Instead we are bringing the mountain down to a lowest common denominator that can be achieved by extremely inexperienced/weak climbers.

Why don't we just use a gas powered compressor to put bolt ladders up every mountain worth climbing. Why don't we bring thousands of pounds of gear and leave the majority of it behind littering the mountains in the name of ease and convenience. Why dont we ask better stronger braver people to climb the mountains 4 or 5 times and fix ladders and ropes so we never have to do anything that would be considered "climbing" outside of this bullshit "himalayan culture". That is nothing more but a convenient excuse to cover up a money driven tourist operation disguised as "climbing".

I have not and will not ever climb everest. It no longer holds a place of respect to myself or most mountaineers I climb with/talk to. Too many people have disgraced it and turned it into nothing more than the workds highest landfill/graveyard. I do however plan to extend my lifetime of mountaineering to places that remain unspoiled and unaltered. Beautiful as nature intended.

csproul wrote: In reality, for me and the majority of Western climbers I have met, few of us would make it up the major HImalayan peaks without this type of siege-supported climbing. Unfortunately, it is the burden of the Sherpa workers to do the brunt of the work and support. I don't know what the answer is or how to fix the problem

People climb harder peaks every year without these tactics. And even in your so called "himalayan culture". It is possible to execute an expedition style ascent with lots of equipment and long trips without employing others to do all the heavy lifting. Even at that go ahead have someone carry your shit the whole way. BUT FOR GODS SAKE STOP USING LADDERS AND FIXED ROPES AND CALLING IT CLIMBING.

ChefMattThaner wrote: People climb harder peaks every year without these tactics. And even in your so called "himalayan culture". It is possible to execute an expedition style ascent with lots of equipment and long trips without employing others to do all the heavy lifting. Even at that go ahead have someone carry your shit the whole way. BUT FOR GODS SAKE STOP USING LADDERS AND FIXED ROPES AND CALLING IT CLIMBING.

Why do you care?

Ryan Watts wrote: Why do you care?

So many reasons, I also get really mad at the local news when a hiker slips and falls down a 14er and they always report it as a "climber" died on x mountain.

ChefMattThaner wrote: This is exactly my point, thank you. Most men were not meant to stand atop that mountain. Mountaineering is all about rising to the level of the mountain. Instead we are bringing the mountain down to a lowest common denominator that can be achieved by extremely inexperienced/weak climbers. Why don't we just use a gas powered compressor to put bolt ladders up every mountain worth climbing. Why don't we bring thousands of pounds of gear and leave the majority of it behind littering the mountains in the name of ease and convenience. Why dont we ask better stronger braver people to climb the mountains 4 or 5 times and fix ladders and ropes so we never have to do anything that would be considered "climbing" outside of this bullshit "himalayan culture". That is nothing more but a convenient excuse to cover up a money driven tourist operation disguised as "climbing". I have not and will not ever climb everest. It no longer holds a place of respect to myself or most mountaineers I climb with/talk to. Too many people have disgraced it and turned it into nothing more than the workds highest landfill/graveyard. I do however plan to extend my lifetime of mountaineering to places that remain unspoiled and unaltered. Beautiful as nature intended.

While I agree with much of what you say, I think it is a huge oversimplification and a bit disingenuous to characterize your average Everest climber as weak and inexperienced. Yes, it is the case that some are, but I think you'd be surprised by how many strong, skilled climbers are there too. And for most of them, 8000m is still damn hard. It's a different kind of hard from technical alpine climbing or even humping loads on Denali. It should be hard! Even when all-Western, i.e. not Sherpa supported climbers climb 8000m peaks, they often have historically "spent" members of their party to fix and stock, knowing full well that they wren't the ones going to the summit. Does that make those summiters weak and inexperienced too? Don't get me wrong, I think it's become a shit-show too, but I think it's pretty easy to blame the "weak, unskilled, clients" from the safety of your warm, low-altitude armchair. It is human nature to want to go faster, farther, more-difficult, and higher. I can't blame mountaineers one bit for wanting to get that high. I've tried and failed (not Everest), and I understand the want. The system is messed up and could certainly use an overhaul. The Sherpas deserve better, but just because it doesn't conform to your ideal of what climbing should be does not make it a worthless pursuit, even in its (flawed) current form.

ChefMattThaner wrote: People climb harder peaks every year without these tactics. And even in your so called "himalayan culture". It is possible to execute an expedition style ascent with lots of equipment and long trips without employing others to do all the heavy lifting. Even at that go ahead have someone carry your shit the whole way. BUT FOR GODS SAKE STOP USING LADDERS AND FIXED ROPES AND CALLING IT CLIMBING.

Is it ok to employ an airplane to do your heavy lifting to the Kahiltna? How about donkeys and their driver to get to an Andean base camp? I can tell you that trek into the Annapurnas and the time spent there to climb, there is virtually no way I could imagine doing an average 8000m and not having some means of carrying all your shit in. We're not talking about a couple day walk with your backpack. We're talking spending weeks if not months.

I don't see anything wrong with the use of ladders and fixed ropes for these types of ascents. Alpine ascents in the HImalaya are kind of unreasonable for all but the elite. The problem comes from relying on a skilled labor force to install them! Those devices are no different than fixing lines on a big wall for your partner(s) to jug and to haul gear. The problem is that the Sherpa are the ones doing all the work of putting them up and getting little of the reward.

Would it make you feel better if we start calling them 8000m hikers?

csproul wrote: Is it ok to employ an airplane to do your heavy lifting to the Kahiltna? How about donkeys and their driver to get to an Andean base camp? I can tell you that trek into the Annapurnas and the time spent there to climb, there is virtually no way I could imagine doing an average 8000m and not having some means of carrying all your shit in. We're not talking about a couple day walk with your backpack. We're talking spending weeks if not months. I don't see anything wrong with the use of ladders and fixed ropes for these types of ascents. Alpine ascents in the HImalaya are kind of unreasonable for all but the elite. The problem comes from relying on a skilled labor force to install them! Those devices are no different than fixing lines on a big wall for your partner(s) to jug and to haul gear. The problem is that the Sherpa are the ones doing all the work of putting them up and getting little of the reward. Would it make you feel better if we start calling them 8000m hikers?

Well if I am going to climb a specific peak I dont see why kayaking across the ocean would be a reflection of my climbing. I CLIMBED Rainier, that does not infer I walked from my house in colorado to get there and then climb it. I CLIMBED Denali, that does not infer I flew the plane from DIA. Simce when are first ascents measured from your doorstep?

People can climb however they choose, but that does not mean that the so called arm chair mountaineers the likes of Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk, wont call them out for the bullshit they are trying to pass of as alpinism, mountaineering, expedition ckimbing or whatever sorry ass excuse you want to use for a name. I will concede that the use of fixed ropes and ladders is high alpine hiking, for sure.

ChefMattThaner wrote: Spoken like a true mountaineer.... Since we all know there is no experience that matters outside of the himalayas. Usually the person making statements like this are those with the least experience in these matters. It's the old, "I have nothing substantial to add since I have never been above timberline, so instead ill try to counter with assumptions and irrelavent questions," defense. Let the adults talk Mark

Well since you asked, I've been on 6 Nepalese trekking peaks and my wife and I reached 25,000 feet on Cho Oyu before turning back when she went blind in one eye. That latter trip was without oxygen and without support above ABC.

There are plenty of people on MP with more experience than me. When they post, you might consider listening to what they have to say. I try to.

You have answered my original question, I think- you have NO such experience.
In fact, since you have prejudged the situation based on your fantasy interpretation of what mountaineering should be, you are starting with less than zero knowledge.

And just out of curiosity, what gives you the right to speak for Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk?

ChefMattThaner wrote: Well if I am going to climb a specific peak I dont see why kayaking across the ocean would be a reflection of my climbing. I CLIMBED Rainier, that does not infer I walked from my house in colorado to get there and then climb it. I CLIMBED Denali, that does not infer I flew the plane from DIA. Simce when are first ascents measured from your doorstep? People can climb however they choose, but that does not mean that the so called arm chair mountaineers the likes of Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk, wont call them out for the bullshit they are trying to pass of as alpinism, mountaineering, expedition ckimbing or whatever sorry ass excuse you want to use for a name. I will concede that the use of fixed ropes and ladders is high alpine hiking, for sure.

LOL so because a couple of people have upped the ante and free climbed the Nose, now everyone should stop aiding it? No different with expedition style climbing in the HImalaya. Just because a few people can make alpine ascents of 8000m peaks, you expect everyone to stop expedition style climbing?

You're the one who brought up the possibility of " an expedition style ascent with lots of equipment and long trips without employing others to do all the heavy lifting", not me. You just used a different means of employing others do the heavy lifting. I haven't done any of the more technical routes up Rainier or Denali, but I have been up both of them. And I can tell you for certain that both are much easier than an 8000m peak, even a supported 8000m peak...at least if we are talking about routes of similar technical difficulty. Walking up Rainier or Denali is also "high alpine hiking"....some people want to up the technical difficulty and some want to up the physical difficulty. Why do you care how others climb? It's one thing to object to the treatment of the Sherpa people in this environment or to the leaving of trash in such a beautiful place, but all you really care is proving that you deserve the label "climber".

Mark E Dixon wrote: There are plenty of people on MP with more experience than me. When they post, you might consider listening to what they have to say. I try to. You have answered my original question, I think- you have NO such experience. In fact, since you have prejudged the situation based on your fantasy interpretation of what mountaineering should be, you are starting with less than zero knowledge. And just out of curiosity, what gives you the right to speak for Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk?

Ha, exactly

I propose a $10 fee for all replies discussing the ethics of high altitude mountaineering.

Please pay fines at the following website:

americanalpineclub.org/p/sh…

Mark E Dixon wrote: And just out of curiosity, what gives you the right to speak for Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk?

Not speaking for anyone, they spoke for themselves. This is just one of many interviews where Hayden mentions his aversion to everest.

enormocast.com/episode-7-ha…

So how much trash did you leave up there on Cho Oyu Mark??

ChefMattThaner wrote: So how much trash did you leave up there on Cho Oyu Mark??

As much as I had to, as little as I could.

As for the podcast, TLDL.

Mark E Dixon wrote: As much as I had to, as little as I could. As for the podcast, TLDL.

Sounds like you need a little refresher. Here ya go,

lnt.org/learn/7-principles

ChefMattThaner wrote: So many reasons, I also get really mad at the local news when a hiker slips and falls down a 14er and they always report it as a "climber" died on x mountain.

Matt, you are a total badass mountaineer but you need to just do your thing and stop preaching. It doesn't paint you in a very good light and you've been arguing with some level-headed folks. It's to the point now that I can't tell whether you are serious or trolling and the thread has gotten seriously off topic.

Everest is going to be guided commercially because there's just too much money involved. The ethics of guided siege climbing are irrelevant at this point and the more interesting issue is the Sherpa/Nepali labor movement and whether they will be able to command more respect and recognition for their work.

FWIW in February of 2013 at the AAC meeting in SF Melissa Arnot in an discussion on guiding Everest said some thing to the affect that their goal with clients is to take every unknown factor out of climbing a mountain they can. In the end that means fixing lines from base camp to the summit, carrying everything (including the kitchen sink), satellite wether forecasts, etc for the clients. In the end that leaves only two factors they cannot control, the weather and the client's ability.

Further, in listening to her, I got the impression the guides really do not care about their impact on others on the hill. That is their impact on those who may wish to climb by "fair" means. Unfortunately, the guides have pretty taken over the only two routes that for most real climbers are within their reach, i.e. going from the South or North Col routes to say the West Ridge or N. Face is a big jump. So it is hard to just climb a different route on the hill.

What surprised me about the accident is that while the sherpas make good money that is only the case if they live.That is there did not seem to be any real mechanism in place for death and disability. Of course that can be said for most people. Yes many carry life insurance but few disability insurance. Sadly, Everest will continue to be shit show that it has become.

MarktheCPA wrote: Matt, you are a total badass mountaineer but you need to just do your thing and stop preaching. It doesn't paint you in a very good light and you've been arguing with some level-headed folks. It's to the point now that I can't tell whether you are serious or trolling and the thread has gotten seriously off topic. Everest is going to be guided commercially because there's just too much money involved. The ethics of guided siege climbing are irrelevant at this point and the more interesting issue is the Sherpa/Nepali labor movement and whether they will be able to command more respect and recognition for their work.

Yes, I am the one "preaching" to not leave behind trash on a beautiful mountain and fair treatment of the sherpas. I am not surprised that people find this offensive. I am telling them their accomplishments are tainted, and don't mean as much as they thought it did. I would be pissed too. But in all seriousness, this is a serious issue that the majority of climbers are not owning up to. We issue fines for people that leave behind a single water bottle in a campsite in this country because we understand the importance of leaving no trace. Why do we all of a sudden abandon these principles because it all of a sudden gets harder??

I guess I would love to know why great climbers and mountaineers choose to desecrate a culture and a mountain all in the name of conquering the summit?? I understand it would be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible to climb everest without seige tactics. But isn't that the point? Shouldn't it be really really hard, and only allow the absolute best of the best to climb it?

I apologize if what I said was in any way unsupportive of other climbers endeavors. I think people should be able to climb in a variety of manners, aid, trad, sport, big wall, expedition style. I see how some of my comments could have been seen as disrespectful to these peoples choices. I did not mean that at all and I did get off topic several times. None of these styles require leaving behind the majority of what you brought with you. Why do we allow these people to continue to give a bad name to mountaineering? Apparentely I am the only one that sees leaving trash and dead bodies behind as a bad thing. I guess I am the crazy asshole who has no idea what he is talking about because he decided to wait for his Nepalese climbing career until he could do it without desecrating the mountain at the same time.

You are all correct, I have not climbed above 8000m yet. But I promise you I will before long, and I will do it without leaving behind a single piece of trash. I will not even consider an expedition until I am capable enough to accomplish this. Not saying this makes me better than anyone or more capable than anyone. But it sure makes whatever mountain I climb that much better for those whom climb after me. This is not for selfish reasons. It is so people can see what I saw without a landfill blocking the view. I'm guessing future generations are going to be much happier following my routes than anything you "seige expedition" hikers have ruined. Lets allow history to judge us, not eachother.