UKH

Should we support expeditions grants or should climbers pay for their own trips?

If you think that we should help mountaineering expeditions, then you should attend the Mick Fowler talk at the RGS on the 9th April (see in list of events on ukc) in support of the Mount Everest Foundation.

The Mount Everst Foundation was set up from the left over dfunds and royalties after the 1953 Everst expedition. Every year it allocates grants to teams to explore and climb mountain ranges all over the World.

In reply to francoisecall:

I support the idea of grants - it allows mountaineering, like other grant-dependent activity, to retain the emphasis on ability rather than wealth.

just my 2p.

In reply to francoisecall: I support the idea of grants but wouldn't like to donate money to climbers as i can think of worthier causes. Most climbers will find a way to practice their sport whether they have grants sponsorship or not.

In reply to francoisecall:

Not sure if anyone on UKC really needs the opinion of a slimy Latin foreigner (i.e -> me), but...

...absolutely yes! In the melancholy knowledge that some of my fellow Italian climber may read this and vehemently disagree, I strongly believe that one of the main assets of British climbing in the greater ranges was the possibility (given by organizations like MEF) for impecunious young climbers with big ideas and little money to have some chance to fulfil their dreams with some degree of independence...

...otherwise (here comes the part someone may not like here in Italy) you end up like many impecunious young Italian climbers with big ideas and little money, who normally end up forced to take part to trips paid by a) big clubs or b) corporate sponsors or c) a mix of a and b. With often debatable results, as it's been demonstrated in the last few years.

In reply to francoisecall:

Do you think there will be any tickets available on the door or do they have to be booked in advance? Some of my friends are a bit slow about making their minds up!

In reply to francoisecall: Hi Francoise, of course we should, we support just about every other sporting activity so why not mountaineering? Most mountaineers, very few in fact, make the sort of rewards for excellence in their sport that other sportsmen get.

In reply to francoisecall:

I have benefited from the MEF funds an several occasions and although it was never much it certainly helped, both financially and psychologically. It also gave you access to the map rooms and something to put on your begging letter to companies.

I think encouraging climbing makes a lot more sense than some of the daft antics that people get up to for sponsorship although it makes sense to keep the sums concerned modest in relation to the total budget to spread it around a bit and to avoid people just trying it on for the free trip... we always made a personal contribution and when young it feels more than it would now.

In reply to francoisecall: I like the fact that climbers do not need to be part of the elite to benefit, we recieved much help for a trip with climbing no harder than AD+/D. I'm not sure how well known this is as I believe (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) the MEF has had some trouble finding enough expeditions to sponsor in recent years

In reply to JJ Krammerhead III:

The MEF's brief is to provide grants for "exploration of the mountainous areas of the world". The difficulty of the climbing has very little to do with it. In fact you are likely to get a bigger grant for a trip to explore a previously never visited area and climb a peak by its easiest line than you would for attempting a new route on K2. And you wouldn't get anything for repeating a route, however hard it was.

In reply to Stephen Reid:

Good, in my view exploration is more important than just doing something hard.

I think the MEF is a great idea and it's good that climbers are able to receive grants for expeditions.

In reply to francoisecall:

The MEF has a fantastic track record in supporting young unknown climbers, many of whom went on to do significant things in their climbing lives. With inflation the time will come when the MEF will need greater funds to continue this role effectively, or find ways to focus the money where it is needed.

It is debatable if the support it now gives to wealthy middle aged climbers on their "holidays" is of value, even if good routes are being climbed during these holidays. ouch, have I just shot myself in the foot?

In reply to francoisecall: Yes good, as Luca says it means that non commercial trips can go ahead. However the AC link wouldn't open on my mac...

In reply to DuncanTunstall:

It is open to anyone to apply to the MEF, regardless of sex, age, wealth, colour etc. I am sure all will aplaud this as it is no doubt in line with the latest BMC non-discrimination guidelines. The only discriminatory bit is that only Britons and New Zealanders are eligible.

In reply to Jasonic:

It's a test to see whether there's any point in giving you a grant.

In reply to francoisecall: News item now posted.

I have quoted you Luca - I hope you don't mind!

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news

Jack

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

That's a theoretically valid point Luca, and I'm not sure of the exact Italian examples that you had in mind, however I would suggest that the types of people who hype their 'achievements' will do so anyway, because that's the kind of people they are. They can't blame commercial sponsors.

MEF grants won't go to the kind of trips that these people do - the Poles, 8000m normal routes, Seven Summits etc - so those 'World Class Adventurers' will go on being 'World Class' anyway. At least on their own websites. The Brits are as guilty of this as anyone, so the availability of MEF grants has not stopped the vacuous hype from proliferating.

What I don't like about the MEF grants or similar is that it fosters a culture of other people paying for your holidays. This then seeps over into so-called charity expeditions etc. It seems to rely on this idea that mountaineering, particularly exploratory mountaineering with first ascents, is inherently noble, more so than other activities, and thus should be supported for the benefit of the wider community. I think we now know that mountaineering is not noble, and never was. It's a non-essential personal lifestyle choice (!) that we should pay for with our own money.

Just get a job, two if necessary, and go. You won't have anyone to answer to but yourself.

And I certainly agree with the above that it should be for younger climbers, not middle-aged people who should be able to pay for it if they want to do it.

D

In reply to Damo:

that argument suggests that other grant-supported activity, such as creative activity, should also be self-supported. Whilst the likes of the Arts Council are moving towards a model of encouraging organisations to be self-sustaining in terms of income generation, I'm not sure that outlawing grant support entirely is appropriate. I don't know an awful lot about MEF funding but will it support trips in their entirety or do people have to match MEF funding with funding from other sources (whether through grants, trusts, or personal funds)?

In reply to CJD:

No, it doesn't necessarily suggest that. One need not apply this attitude across all of life. Why do that? Better to treat different areas on their different merits, or lack thereof. Should we implement mandatory drug testing in pub darts competitions :-?

Personally I would say that art is of more benefit to a nation's culture than individual mountaineering trips, but then I would also think that a lot of crap art is produced by talentless, self-important, bullshitters sucking the public money.

But then again, in sheer numbers, more people enjoy the 'products' of the art world than enjoy the 'products' of the mountaineering world so maybe there is more potential in the art world for surviving in the free market. If it's crap, people won't pay their own cash to see it. I know, I know, such profitability is no mark of 'art' and no doubt some great art of the past would not have made it had it been forced to be marketable.

No one MEF grant will be enough to cover an expedition, so it's not worth getting too worked up about. There's no free trips.

However in the US if a small team wins a combination of grants - Mugs Stump Award, AAC grant, etc - then most (or in one case last year) all of their trip can be paid for. I'm not sure that's an entirely good thing. And they failed

D

In reply to Damo:

I agree with you that there's nothing inherently "noble" in mountaineering. And I'm the first one to think that Tasker and Renshaw on the East face of the Jorasses or on the Dunagiri, Boardman and Tasker on Changabang, Saunders or Fowler on the Spantik pillar (just making few examples, independently how did they fund their adventures) weren't doing anything else than having some jolly good fun on the hills.

Still, I'm very happy they did, because the inspiration I got from reading their adventures will stay with me for my entire life, and definitely gave me a big thrust on pursuing MY adventures (ok, not that I had anything remotely comparable to climbing Dunagiri alpine style, but you get the idea). If they had been prevented to do that because of the lack of money, or forced to enlist in a siege-style, "high profile", dull corporate adventure, the world, in my opinion, would have been poorer for that. Or at least, I would have been.

So, yes, I agree that funding this type of activity is paying for someone else's holidays. But if the results are comparable to those of the list above, personally I wouldn't mind contributing!

(Adn by the way, what you do every time you buy a climbing magazine or a mountaineering book, if not "paying for someone else's holidays"?)

In reply to Damo:

fair enough, just being provocative It's an interesting one though...

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

But if the results are comparable to those of the list above, personally I wouldn't mind contributing!

Agreed, Luca, but they so seldom are


I don't pay for my mags, but if I did it seems I'd be paying for lots of gear ads and bouldering news. I would buy more mountaineering books but most of the new books that purport to be such are absolute rubbish.

D

In reply to Damo:

The majority of everything is seldom memorable, interesting or worthwhile. But this doesn't mean that one shouldn't encourage trying!



Again, I believe that out of 10 climbing books out each year there's at least one worth reading. The same goes with climbing magazines - the majority of what they publish is rather dull, but still I'm happy they're published.

Also - I think that an activity where only those with enough money of their own are those who can afford to achieve their dreams, it's a dying activity. In climbing (as in many other fields), the great moment of creativity have historically almost always coincided with strong influxes of new "blood", mostly people with little money but big dreams (this is definitely true for the history of British climbing, at least as I know it!)

In reply to Damo:

One of the questions I am asking myself if whether such small grants are effective. I don't think that nowadays £1000 is going to be impossible for a team to get. It won't stop them doing what they want to do. When the MEF was started in 1953, the cost of expedetions was huge and at that time certainly they would have been outside most people's budget. Nowadays flights are cheap and Brits and New Zealenders are relatively rich.

I also know some people who benefited from MEF grants. They apply systematically. Don't really need the monay and it's just a gme for them. They are not even grateful. Some of them feel they are owed it.

But maybe you have to fund a few doubtful cases to reach those for whom it makes a difference?

In reply to Luca Signorelli:


True. Just don't ask me to pay for their attempts


We're obviously not seeing the same 10 books


Fair enough, but one can do hard climbing in big mountains for relatively little money. Some people just don't want it bad enough. They'll pay 5000 for a car when they could have paid 3000 but the 3000 one wasn't cool enough, so they lose the 2000 that pays for first ascents in China, or they buy a car when the bus would do, or bought a bigger TV, or spent more time down the pub, or whatever. In the larger scheme of mainstream society, climbing trips (excluding Everest, 8000ers etc) are not a ot of money. Not in a world where people spend $10,000 on "home entertainment systems". Of course I'm not talking about Darfur-world, but UK/USA/Australia-world.

Probably worth noting that I realise that MEF grants are not 'public money' but dividends from the capital made from the sale of post-1953 Everest books etc. So climbing is paying for 'itself' in that sense, which is good. Better given as grants for climbing than paying for more committees and rule books.

I would also add, without wanting to be too critical, that the selection process for things like the MEF or AC attract or reward a certain type of person or approach, which may not bear much relevance to how deserving a person is in terms of climbing ability. Though Jonathan Pratt has more to say about that.

D

In reply to francoisecall:
Bingo


No

D

In reply to Damo:

As you've stated below, the money granted by organization like MEF is not "your" money, as it's not taken from public funds. This said, in the current economy the difference between what's "your" money or not is really not as clear cut as many believe - a lot of corporate sponsorship activities of every type are simply paid by people buying the sponsor's product. If I support (for instance) something like the MEF at least I know more or less where my money goes.

In reply to AlisonS:

At the moment there are lots of tickets still available (the theatre is huge), so there will almost certainly be tickets on the door. I have seen these things fill the place up though, so obviously the only way to guarantee your place is to get a ticket beforehand!