This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Nepal has banned solo climbers from attempting its mountains, in addition to prohibiting ascents by double amputee and blind climbers.
Read more
Read more
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
What % of the corpses on Everest were climbing solo, or were blind/amputees? Is this an evidence based decision or is the line about creating more jobs closer to the truth?
What % of the corpses on Everest were climbing solo, or were blind/amputees? Is this an evidence based decision or is the line about creating more jobs closer to the truth?
24
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This is not about solo climbing. The big deal is the following:
"From now on, foreign mountaineers must climb accompanied by a guide, which the Nepali authorities hope will assist in creating more jobs for local guides."
I'm afraid one cannot even climb with his climbing partner.
This is not about solo climbing. The big deal is the following:
"From now on, foreign mountaineers must climb accompanied by a guide, which the Nepali authorities hope will assist in creating more jobs for local guides."
I'm afraid one cannot even climb with his climbing partner.
11
5
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
The most commercial mountain gets more commercial... When does the cafe at the top open?
The most commercial mountain gets more commercial... When does the cafe at the top open?
17
1
8
In reply to GHawksworth:
One of the world’s poorest countries wants to cash in on its most valuable asset. Shock horror
One of the world’s poorest countries wants to cash in on its most valuable asset. Shock horror
46
6
In reply to GrahamD:
This is being reported on BBC that it applies to all mountains in nepal, not just Everest.
This is being reported on BBC that it applies to all mountains in nepal, not just Everest.
7
4
1
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Didn't anyone hear the report on this on I think it was the 6pm Radio 4 News? It was one of the more ridiculously poor pieces of journalism I've heard for some time. The reporter talked about Steck's death and that Alan Hinkes says that had this law been in place Steck might not have died. Hinkes then begins talking and says the exact opposite, that the law will probably just mean two people dying now because everyone will need to be tied to someone. It was bizarrely stupid (the reporting, not Hinkes's comments).
Didn't anyone hear the report on this on I think it was the 6pm Radio 4 News? It was one of the more ridiculously poor pieces of journalism I've heard for some time. The reporter talked about Steck's death and that Alan Hinkes says that had this law been in place Steck might not have died. Hinkes then begins talking and says the exact opposite, that the law will probably just mean two people dying now because everyone will need to be tied to someone. It was bizarrely stupid (the reporting, not Hinkes's comments).
11
In reply to TobyA:
It's a weird comment, had Steck set off 30 seconds earlier or later he might not have died. He wasn't in over his head, he simply suffered from bad luck.
It's a weird comment, had Steck set off 30 seconds earlier or later he might not have died. He wasn't in over his head, he simply suffered from bad luck.
10
4
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
"From now on, foreign mountaineers must climb accompanied by a guide"
How easy is it to gain Nepali citizenship?
Also realistically how are they going to stop people from trekking in under false pretence and having a go individually or in their own partnerships without hiring a guide?
"From now on, foreign mountaineers must climb accompanied by a guide"
How easy is it to gain Nepali citizenship?
Also realistically how are they going to stop people from trekking in under false pretence and having a go individually or in their own partnerships without hiring a guide?
In reply to Removed UserDocLemurian:
I wonder where that leaves foreign teams wanting to try hard or new routes on the mountain. Accepting the risks that that entails yourself, as a strong team, is fair - having to find a local guide to go with you is just absurd.
I wonder where that leaves foreign teams wanting to try hard or new routes on the mountain. Accepting the risks that that entails yourself, as a strong team, is fair - having to find a local guide to go with you is just absurd.
4
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Much of the coverage of this story seems to be missing the main story by focusing on Everest and "solo climbers".
Most reports say that Nepal is banning the climbing of "mountains" (just NMA peaks??) by unguided climbers (not just Everest and not just "solo" climbers), thus putting an end to most independent high altitude mountaineering in Nepal.
Much of the coverage of this story seems to be missing the main story by focusing on Everest and "solo climbers".
Most reports say that Nepal is banning the climbing of "mountains" (just NMA peaks??) by unguided climbers (not just Everest and not just "solo" climbers), thus putting an end to most independent high altitude mountaineering in Nepal.
Post edited at 17:13
2
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I'm not entirely surprised. Climbing Everest today is not what it used to be. Hundreds of people attempt every year at the same time due to the small weather window. Many of the aren't even proper climbers. There is tons of garbage just abandoned on Everest along with numerous unrecovered dead bodies. Introducing mandatory guides will probably reduce the numbers significantly. It's sad news for proper climbers but from the Nepali government point of view it would be hard or impossible to ascertain someone's climbing credentials.
I'm not entirely surprised. Climbing Everest today is not what it used to be. Hundreds of people attempt every year at the same time due to the small weather window. Many of the aren't even proper climbers. There is tons of garbage just abandoned on Everest along with numerous unrecovered dead bodies. Introducing mandatory guides will probably reduce the numbers significantly. It's sad news for proper climbers but from the Nepali government point of view it would be hard or impossible to ascertain someone's climbing credentials.
4
2
1
In reply to Mowglee:
I don't know for sure, but there is a climber who deliberately doesn't publicise their peak-fee-free ascents of certain Nepalese summits, in case they ever want to go back to that country.
So I'm guessing they would simply require you to settle all outstanding peak fee bills before they issue you a visa for a return visit.
I don't know for sure, but there is a climber who deliberately doesn't publicise their peak-fee-free ascents of certain Nepalese summits, in case they ever want to go back to that country.
So I'm guessing they would simply require you to settle all outstanding peak fee bills before they issue you a visa for a return visit.
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:
If unguided ascents are really being banned across the whole country it is a really sad development.
In my opinion, mountaineers have brought this on themselves over the last ~ 30 years by failing to educate the public as to what really constitutes a valid ascent of a mountain. If, when the first commercial expeditions appeared, there had been a well-organised media campaign, to say that "no, your fixed-ropes-all-the-way-sherpa-pushing-on-your-arse ascent doesn't count" maybe the commercial guiding circus would never have taken off. Even better if no-supplementary-oxygen had been taken as a standard when Messner and Habeler managed Everest in that style in 1978.
Generally I feel that the climbing media in north america has taken a tougher line on this issue, and it has been the Brits and euros who have blurred the message. Something to do with the relative size of their mountain guide sectors perhaps? UKC itself has always carried plenty of advertising from firms like Jagged Globe - in fact weren't JG part-owners of the site BITD?
If unguided ascents are really being banned across the whole country it is a really sad development.
In my opinion, mountaineers have brought this on themselves over the last ~ 30 years by failing to educate the public as to what really constitutes a valid ascent of a mountain. If, when the first commercial expeditions appeared, there had been a well-organised media campaign, to say that "no, your fixed-ropes-all-the-way-sherpa-pushing-on-your-arse ascent doesn't count" maybe the commercial guiding circus would never have taken off. Even better if no-supplementary-oxygen had been taken as a standard when Messner and Habeler managed Everest in that style in 1978.
Generally I feel that the climbing media in north america has taken a tougher line on this issue, and it has been the Brits and euros who have blurred the message. Something to do with the relative size of their mountain guide sectors perhaps? UKC itself has always carried plenty of advertising from firms like Jagged Globe - in fact weren't JG part-owners of the site BITD?
10
2
In reply to tobyfk:
It probably doesn't help that there's no consensus on what counts as a valid ascent, and I don't think 'the public' care about it anyway
> mountaineers have brought this on themselves over the last ~ 30 years by failing to educate the public as to what really constitutes a valid ascent of a mountain
It probably doesn't help that there's no consensus on what counts as a valid ascent, and I don't think 'the public' care about it anyway
2
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:
Yes, would be good to have this qualified. If just Everest, well, it probably doesn't make a huge difference since non-guided climbers aren't going to want to join the circus anyway. For other mountains this is just stupid and will surely do more harm than good. Foreign teams going for new/technical routes still usually have to hire porters to get the stuff to base camp, but will likely be put off from coming in the first place if such rules are in place.
> So, do we know if this is just the big E, or all mountains yet?
Yes, would be good to have this qualified. If just Everest, well, it probably doesn't make a huge difference since non-guided climbers aren't going to want to join the circus anyway. For other mountains this is just stupid and will surely do more harm than good. Foreign teams going for new/technical routes still usually have to hire porters to get the stuff to base camp, but will likely be put off from coming in the first place if such rules are in place.
In reply to tobyfk:
>
Exactly. UKC has been bad for this, letting some things through (not all) then turning around and complaining about the things they let through.
I've been banging on about the consequences of commercial guiding for those not being guided for years. A quick search here shows I was saying it in 2008 https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=332588&v=1#x4927268
and still in 2011 : https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=484487 and I know I was doing it for years before then.
So many people said it didn't matter.
>
> In my opinion, mountaineers have brought this on themselves over the last ~ 30 years by failing to educate the public as to what really constitutes a valid ascent of a mountain.
Exactly. UKC has been bad for this, letting some things through (not all) then turning around and complaining about the things they let through.
I've been banging on about the consequences of commercial guiding for those not being guided for years. A quick search here shows I was saying it in 2008 https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=332588&v=1#x4927268
and still in 2011 : https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=484487 and I know I was doing it for years before then.
So many people said it didn't matter.
5
In reply to tobyfk:
Do you really think this is the motivation for one of the world's poorest countries outside Africa ? More likely it seems to me that they have cottoned onto the commercial value of their mountains a bit more and want to cash in a bit (and who can blame them) ? the income from the odd highly seasonal high profile super star expedition is pretty small beer (I assume - I have to admit to not having any figures) to the myriad of freelancers on 'lesser' objectives.
If they have their business model wrong, I'm assuming that people will go for Tibet, Bhutan, Sikim, Pakistan, Kashmir etc. Maybe we have just got blase about access to the Himalaya via Nepal ? Its not that long ago access via Nepal was possible at all.
Do you really think this is the motivation for one of the world's poorest countries outside Africa ? More likely it seems to me that they have cottoned onto the commercial value of their mountains a bit more and want to cash in a bit (and who can blame them) ? the income from the odd highly seasonal high profile super star expedition is pretty small beer (I assume - I have to admit to not having any figures) to the myriad of freelancers on 'lesser' objectives.
If they have their business model wrong, I'm assuming that people will go for Tibet, Bhutan, Sikim, Pakistan, Kashmir etc. Maybe we have just got blase about access to the Himalaya via Nepal ? Its not that long ago access via Nepal was possible at all.
> If unguided ascents are really being banned across the whole country it is a really sad development.
> In my opinion, mountaineers have brought this on themselves over the last ~ 30 years by failing to educate the public as to what really constitutes a valid ascent of a mountain.
In reply to GrahamD:
Problem though is that the commercial value of climbing in greater ranges, and general bureaucracy, doesn't always mean a better income and life for people at the end of the chain. Have Everest peak fees done much for porters working conditions for example? I'd love to have visited East Tibet, were it not for the insane peak royalties demanded. How is is good for the local population, probably some of the poorest in China I imagine, if the state has set royalties so high that it prices 99% of people out of the market. If peak fees were introduced in the Alps then I think we'd all recognise that that wouldn't be good for local business.
On the broader subject of red tape / bureaucracy in the greater ranges (not necessarily Everest), an ideal situation for me is to hire people directly at local level. It takes more effort but ensures 100% of what I spend goes to those that I employ. Ironically it's often red tape that prevents me from doing this, meaning money often needs to go via an agency or state first. The big agencies in Kathmandu and Islamabad will always have greater leverage to drive worker wages down. In Pakistan for example the lowest porter rates have traditionally been in the K2 region - ironically where there is the most commercial activity and red tape.
Everest is different I know. Like no other mountain. A right mess I think we'd all agree. I've probably gone a bit off topic I know. I just don't think the simplistic argument that increased fees and regulations are necessarily a good thing for a given local population.
> Do you really think this is the motivation for one of the world's poorest countries outside Africa ? More likely it seems to me that they have cottoned onto the commercial value of their mountains a bit more and want to cash in a bit (and who can blame them) ? the income from the odd highly seasonal high profile super star expedition is pretty small beer (I assume - I have to admit to not having any figures) to the myriad of freelancers on 'lesser' objectives.
Problem though is that the commercial value of climbing in greater ranges, and general bureaucracy, doesn't always mean a better income and life for people at the end of the chain. Have Everest peak fees done much for porters working conditions for example? I'd love to have visited East Tibet, were it not for the insane peak royalties demanded. How is is good for the local population, probably some of the poorest in China I imagine, if the state has set royalties so high that it prices 99% of people out of the market. If peak fees were introduced in the Alps then I think we'd all recognise that that wouldn't be good for local business.
On the broader subject of red tape / bureaucracy in the greater ranges (not necessarily Everest), an ideal situation for me is to hire people directly at local level. It takes more effort but ensures 100% of what I spend goes to those that I employ. Ironically it's often red tape that prevents me from doing this, meaning money often needs to go via an agency or state first. The big agencies in Kathmandu and Islamabad will always have greater leverage to drive worker wages down. In Pakistan for example the lowest porter rates have traditionally been in the K2 region - ironically where there is the most commercial activity and red tape.
Everest is different I know. Like no other mountain. A right mess I think we'd all agree. I've probably gone a bit off topic I know. I just don't think the simplistic argument that increased fees and regulations are necessarily a good thing for a given local population.
4
In reply to Mr. Lee:
Well no, which is why I suspect the rules have been applied to the more accessible (and possibly less exploited) 'lower' peaks.
We get obsessed by Everest but, other than being a shop window, is likely less lucrative overall than exploiting the more accessible peaks.
Also, I'd argue that managing / regulating agencies is a separate issue from the Nepalese trying to maximise the income to Nepal from its main assets.
> Problem though is that the commercial value of climbing in greater ranges, and general bureaucracy, doesn't always mean a better income and life for people at the end of the chain. Have Everest peak fees done much for porters working conditions for example?
Well no, which is why I suspect the rules have been applied to the more accessible (and possibly less exploited) 'lower' peaks.
We get obsessed by Everest but, other than being a shop window, is likely less lucrative overall than exploiting the more accessible peaks.
Also, I'd argue that managing / regulating agencies is a separate issue from the Nepalese trying to maximise the income to Nepal from its main assets.
In reply to GrahamD:
Tibet and Sikkim are far (far) more expensive and restricted than Nepal.
Bhutan totally prohibits any mountaineering, since the early 90s.
Pakistan is far more difficult to climb in, with fewer easy peaks with access infrastructure.
Kashmir? Depends where you mean, but India in general could provide a real alternative/competition for easy and accessible 6000m peak climbing, much better than Nepal, but the Indians don't seem able to allow that.
>
> If they have their business model wrong, I'm assuming that people will go for Tibet, Bhutan, Sikim, Pakistan, Kashmir etc.
> If they have their business model wrong, I'm assuming that people will go for Tibet, Bhutan, Sikim, Pakistan, Kashmir etc.
Tibet and Sikkim are far (far) more expensive and restricted than Nepal.
Bhutan totally prohibits any mountaineering, since the early 90s.
Pakistan is far more difficult to climb in, with fewer easy peaks with access infrastructure.
Kashmir? Depends where you mean, but India in general could provide a real alternative/competition for easy and accessible 6000m peak climbing, much better than Nepal, but the Indians don't seem able to allow that.
In reply to GrahamD:
>
I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but I'd guess Everest climbing brings in more cash to the government than non-Everest climbing - but trekking would far outweigh both of them in terms of overall financial benefit to the locals.
There really is very little climbing done on Nepal peaks other than Everest, Ama Dablam, Manaslu, Island Peak, Lobuche East and Mera. It's a few years since I looked at the government stats (too depressing) but the demarcation was stark.
>
> We get obsessed by Everest but, other than being a shop window, is likely less lucrative overall than exploiting the more accessible peaks.
I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but I'd guess Everest climbing brings in more cash to the government than non-Everest climbing - but trekking would far outweigh both of them in terms of overall financial benefit to the locals.
There really is very little climbing done on Nepal peaks other than Everest, Ama Dablam, Manaslu, Island Peak, Lobuche East and Mera. It's a few years since I looked at the government stats (too depressing) but the demarcation was stark.
In reply to Damo:
That was sort of the point: By the standards of the region what Nepal are proposing is still not particularly restrictive, much as it irks us pampered westerners.
> Tibet and Sikkim are far (far) more expensive and restricted than Nepal.
> Bhutan totally prohibits any mountaineering, since the early 90s.
> Pakistan is far more difficult to climb in, with fewer easy peaks with access infrastructure.
> Bhutan totally prohibits any mountaineering, since the early 90s.
> Pakistan is far more difficult to climb in, with fewer easy peaks with access infrastructure.
That was sort of the point: By the standards of the region what Nepal are proposing is still not particularly restrictive, much as it irks us pampered westerners.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...