9 ms·

Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

171 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

harigov 9y ago
As someone with some mountaineering experience in North America, I am really surprised to hear that they ever allowed this in the first place. Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do, but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains. And you can only search for so many people. I think it is reasonable to expect that those who plan to climb such scary mountains find someone to accompany them.
- teej 9y ago
  This regulation is for foreign climbers. I don’t think people expect full personal liberty in a foreign country.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Well, some do, but what they expect and what they actually have a right to, are different things.
- __s 9y ago
  > but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains It's two distinct groups. If there is overlap there'll likely be ideas like fining someone after a rescue unless they have insurance, & then leaving it up to insurance companies to decide about solo climber coverage
  - harigov 9y ago
    Good point. My point is that some people don't think about the consequences of what they are asking for, unless prompted for it, and they usually have ideas that are contradictory. Of course, your point still stands and I agree alternatives should be considered as well. However, I am still in support of forcing people to go in groups because it is safer. I don't have data, but I do believe from experience that there is safety in numbers.
    - matt-attack 9y ago
      Regarding people not thinking about the consequences, I’d say that mistake typically falls in lawmakers. Lawmaker: “hmm, motorcyclists without helmets put too much of a financial burden on hospitals, so let’s outlaw helmetless riding.” Instead of infringing on civil liberties why not target the problem at hand? Mandate specific insurance, or self-insurance, etc. in order to ride in that manner. Same could be said here. If there is a specific financial bidder you’re trying to solve, then create a focused law that specifically aims to resolve the point at hand. I really hate these broad-stroke lazy regulations. I’d like to think professional lawmakers would be experts at this.
      - vidarh 9y ago
        I'm not sure I agree with respect to things like helmetless riding - I've not quite made my mind up. But I'd suggest that one thing that ought to be done with all law is that the law ought to specify "acceptance criteria" that specify what the law is setting out to fix, and courts ought to be able to set aside laws if they can be proven to not meet the stated goal, and interpret them more narrowly if they can be shown to not be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal. I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down. A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".
- amorphid 9y ago
  > Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do If I were in charge (I never will be), my first inclination would be to not restrict high risk climbing. But then I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that a hands off approach would be that simple. I'd want to understand the drawbacks of people dying on the mountain. I'd be concerned with being responsible for rescue costs, being vilified for not making rescue attempts, the cost of medical treatments, the lives lost in attempting to make rescues, any correlations between deaths & the number of climbing attempts made (is it scaring people away, attracting even more, etc.), how the press coverage affects Nepal's public image, and so on. In the end, banning high risk climbing might simply be a good & conservative decision.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I’d say, let them climb how they want, but mandate full insurance coverage for any needed evacuation, medical treatment, and corpse removal. As long as people don’t litter or pass costs along to others, the rest could be up to them.
    - aglionby 9y ago
      I'm not sure that's the point though -- once you're up there these things are dangerous rather than just expensive. bhickey has a post further down which explains their experience nicely.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I’m aware that rescue and corpse removal is highly dangerous, but that just means the insurance would be extremely expensive.
- droithomme 9y ago
  > the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains You posit a valuable and worthwhile hypothesis. I would appreciate it if you could show conclusive evidence that any solo climber of Everest who died requested as you claim that "government go search" when they went missing. Thank you.
  - harigov 9y ago
    I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the people who are climbing are the ones who are asking govt to go search for them if them go missing. I am talking about people, who in general ask for liberty in such matters while also asking govt to provide search and rescue operations to deal with any fallouts. I am sure you would ask me for data to show conclusive evidence of this happening and my answer is that I have none.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      There also isn’t really an alternative - and if I’m paying taxes for the services of course I’m going to use them while I am forced to pay for them. I have no problem paying, personally, but I don’t really like the line of reasoning used in your comment.
- akkat 9y ago
  How about forcing them to leave some money as collateral or forcing climbers to get insurance like with scuba divers?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cyberferret 9y ago
I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it. Plus, I would hate to think that you would become just a nameless waypoint or turning marker on the way to the summit, much as poor 'Green Boots' and others have become. (though I believe 'Green Boots' has been removed now?) EDIT: It appears that 'Green Boots' is still on the mountain, and has not been removed as previously thought. [0] [0] - http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/05/27/everest-2017-weekend-update-may-27/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/05/27/everest-2017-week...
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Everest is the worst example of mountaineering. For many it's just an achievement, not an experience, not something that's worthwhile on its own merits. And in that light it makes it more obvious why so many people fall into the trap of tackling it unprepared. Many people don't understand how challenging it can be and they think that if they just struggle through and be miserable for a few days they'll come out the other end with a shiny brass ring they can decorate their life with, something that will serve as bragging rights and help define who they are as a person for their life. It's really not much different than, say, college, for that matter. When you have people who have been rewarded so much for gaming the system, when you have people who struggle constantly in the search for authenticity and meaning in their life they are prone to try to fake their way through.
  - whatever_dude 9y ago
    I can't speak for climbers from other countries, but I feel that the American attitude towards achievements like "climbing mountain X" is that they want exactly that, a checkmark on a list. They want to get in and get out as fast as possible. The destination is the goal, and everything in between is just noise that should be overcome as swiftly as possible. This is, at least, my anedoctal experience. I go hiking recreational level hills with (American) friends frequently and it always annoys me how they just want to get to the top as soon as possible and then come back down just as quickly. I instead frequently stop on my way to look around and admire the view (and not just at officially sanctioned "lookout points") and this is something they never have any inclination on doing.
basicplus2 9y ago
Why ban solo climbing? If an idiot wants to do something stupid, why interfere with natural selection? And why waste money looking for them?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  If nothing else, I'd imagine it's nicer for everyone else not to have to step over a pile of dead bodies to get up the mountain.
  - ansible 9y ago
    There's already more than a few bodies up there now. Some are a little famous, like the green boots guy. The bodies can't be removed. It's such an extreme environment. You can't really rescue people who are in trouble. At best, with multiple climbers, you can have someone else tell you that you shouldn't proceed, which might save your life. But if someone is already in trouble, you can't really help out, or you will die too. Sure, if you have an extra energy bar, you can give that to your buddy, but that's about it.
    - bhickey 9y ago
      > There's already more than a few bodies up there now. Some are a little famous, like the green boots guy. The bodies can't be removed. The Times just had an interesting feature on Everest body recovery: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everest-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everes...
      - CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
        This. The linked article's title is "Deliverance From 27,000 Feet". It's been posted on HN four times (see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Finteractive%2F2017%2F12%2F18%2Fsports%2Feverest-deaths.html&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ), but I believe first post is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15951204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15951204 Although the main theme of the article is about the recovery of a body from near the summit, it has background information on when climbs can take place, and how the route to the summit is established every year. IMO, it's a worthwhile read!
osrec 9y ago
Everest is an absolute beast of a climb. Even with preparation and a full team, lives can be (and have been) lost. Going it alone, while remarkable, is extremely deadly and Nepal is doing the responsible thing by banning such endeavours. For other teams of climbers also, it's one of the more sinister (and perhaps annoying) things - when you're doing well on your climb, but your good nature makes you abort your effort for some random twit alone and in trouble halfway up a mountain.
- starpilot 9y ago
  It has no technical challenge from the standard "tourist" route and mainly presents economic obstacles, in that it costs as much as an SUV. Most people in decent health could train for a year and summit successfully. It is the mountaineering equivalent of reading an entire encyclopedia. Sheer volume of effort is all it takes.
  - osrec 9y ago
    While I agree that most people can do it, it's a very large undertaking often lasting 30-40 days. A lot can go wrong in that time, including ill health or injury. That's why having others with you makes sense.
  - InclinedPlane 9y ago
    That assumes everything goes well. When things start to not go well then the survival outcomes start changing dramatically based on who has more preparation and experience.
sgregnt 9y ago
Why not sell individual permits and make it so expansive that it covers the rescue?
- gtirloni 9y ago
  It's hard to put a price on the certain lives of rescuers that will be lost (given enough rescue missions).
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Just tell the climbers in advance they will not mount rescue missions for people who do not meet a minimum threshold of competence and preparation.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      How about not mounting publicly funded rescue missions at all? You can pay for insurance if you want someone to risk their life to come get you.
      - muninn_ 9y ago
        Although Everest is a bit of an outlier here - this is a dangerous sentiment to hold if someone actually holds it.
    - grahamannett 9y ago
      they already do this. theres a huge amount of luck that factors into a summit for a ton of climbs. they spend weeks just acclimating let alone the amount of preparation prior to their climbs (and the fact that people who want to just pay to summit are not physically capable or even allowed up, theres actual physical confrontations by guides to head back more often than you'd think). theres a reason people are left for dead and walk back to camps in the middle of the night (beck weathers is the de facto example) and its because they are so incredibly competent and prepared that they are able to survive but at extreme costs to themselves and those around
staunch 9y ago
And there goes my cheap cryogenics backup plan...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
senatorobama 9y ago
Now ban Denali.
bhickey 9y ago
I'd rather see Nepal ban fixed ropes and yank the ladder off the Hillary Step, but that'd kill the whole industry.
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  i’m with you. No serious alpinists do much of anything on everest these days, and it’s hard to do a rational cost/benefit for the fees of well-heeled tourists versus the rights of the sherpas and the state of the mountain.
  - grahamannett 9y ago
    im always curious where the notion that 'everest is the worlds highest stair stepper' comes from. everyone i know whos a serious alpinist still holds it in pretty high regards for any number of reasons. which serious alpinists no longer do much on everest? of course its not a climb for mountaineers trying to put up a new route/make news due to the fact its the most climbed 8ker but i can think of 3 big names still guiding it regularly and conrad anker who may be the "most famous" mountaineer summited in 2012 according to his wiki. i could see honnold trying to summit everest in the next few years as well.
    - dillondoyle 9y ago
      Why would Honnold commit to spending two months AWAY from rock? He struggles with just a single 'rest' day which for him usually means running up a mountain (not snowy technical). I assume you mean Alex Honnold the rock climber...
    - hprotagonist 9y ago
      Andrew Bisharat (http://eveningsends.com/everest-is-not-for-climbers/ http://eveningsends.com/everest-is-not-for-climbers/) But what this sad story reaffirms, to me, is that Everest is not for climbers. It’s for guides and clients, and all the infrastructure that goes into getting a large mass of people up the same two routes, as more than 3,000 people have done in the last 60 years. The mountain has been fully co-opted by the guide culture, and it seems as though there isn’t any room—logistically, if nothing else—for “real” climbers to go climbing as a small team, and demonstrate the self-reliance and skill that normally goes into climbing almost any other mountain. the long and short of it is that Everest is not where The Hard Stuff Up High is. That's K2, Meru, Annapurna, Cerro Torre... Honnold is not really much of an alpinist, and I doubt he'll ever do Everest ... but he did just spend a month crushing in Antarctica. (guided) mountaineering and alpinism are very different beasts, and Everest is a guided mountain (now). Fixed ropes, O2, guides, lines, litter. Judging by the last few years of trip reports in the AAC journal, the people who want to rack up and stomp off into the mountains alone or with one or two partners are going elsewhere.
ryannevius 9y ago
It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something). There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-everest-fastest-known-time https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-...
- paulcole 9y ago
  Seems like there’s doubts that Kilian submitted at all. Personally, I think he did, but as of now there’s really no proof. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8591724 http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8591724 Edit: Why downvote this? Is there any evidence Kilian submitted beyond his word?
  - justinator 9y ago
    Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?
    - paulcole 9y ago
      >What then, does he need to prove? That he has been to the summit. Just for the sake of argument, the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back? Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? I know he’s a beast and GOAT but he’s still human.
      - justinator 9y ago
        > the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back? The guy is a living legend in his 20's. He's already failed on Everest before, in 2016. What pressure do you think Salomon has on Jornet? Salomon is a 700 million dollar a year in revenue company, whose parent company has yearly revenue in the billions. They got the scratch and Jornet is Salomon's top athlete, no question about it. I don't even think Salomon was the sole, or even main sponsor. His blog lists Mercedes Benz a b.s. luxury brand that seems to be what's needed as the catalyst for large expeditions into the Himalayas that has nothing to do with mountaineering. The big money in sponsorship (as an athlete) is in racing, not mountaineering. But Jornet has literally won every race there is to win! Salomon is sponsoring Jornet even though he doesn't do what a sponsors runner is supposed to do - because he's his own weather system of getting eyeballs interested in the brands that sponsor him - he doesn't need UTMB, or any other ultra race anymore. He can compete in them for fun, when he wants to. Take it from me, there's little if no money in setting FKTs, and only the Jornet's of the world could pull it off. His sponsors aren't pushing for him to do this stuff, he's telling his sponsors what he's doing, the sponsors put up the hype, and they all make a lot of money. > Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? No, he was not disqualified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyRew7lr5eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyRew7lr5eE There's little to no money in being a professional ultra runner. A little little better in Europe, but the only dude I know that makes a living as a pro ultra runner is so injured, he can't even run. It honestly doesn't matter: he has a huge social media following, and he gets people excited for the brand. He makes a living not running (he doesn't coach, he doesn't put on his own race, nothing). He makes pennies to Jornet's dollars. Believe me, Jornet's doing fine, and wouldn't need to fake a summit bid. Remember too, he summited twice in that one trip.
throwawaylalala 9y ago
Killian Journet just ran to the top twice, solo. No supplemental oxygen. Looks like his record will stand.
- paulcole 9y ago
  Did he start on the Nepalese or Chinese side? I haven’t seen this mentioned in any articles about him.
  - throwawaylalala 9y ago
    They discuss base camp a lot, so I believe it was Nepal. Certainly it could be China, but I think they would have highlighted that. Also, he did it without fixed ropes.
    - grahamannett 9y ago
      http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web17s/newswire-kilian-jornet-makes-two-rapid-everest-ascents http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web17s/newswire-kilian-jornet-ma... north col is tibet
mindfulplay 9y ago
Nepal has more basic things to worry about. Sorry. Some rich dude hanging at the edge of some cliff should be problem number 58299 in their or my list. This is gone crazy. At least have a written note that forbids anyone from saving their life if it comes to it. They put their own life and the rescuers' lives at risk. Everytime someone proudly says 'i climbed the Everest ' oh cool, I immediately think, who is the sherpa? They get my praise. Not some rich, over priveleged dude who thinks the rest of the world has to bend to their will for whatever sordid privileged game they are interested in playing.
- paulcole 9y ago
  Rich dudes don’t climb solo. They pay six figures for guided expeditions with all the trimmings.
  - mindfulplay 9y ago
    That's even worse. If it's for Instagram selfie pleasure I have better ideas for these people.
    - praneshp 9y ago
      Yeah, but your idea sucks. I prefer Everest for my selfie.
- Fordrus 9y ago
  Well, banning the practice is the first step towards doing exactly that. The whole world is a lot more understanding of the stance, "Sorry, we cannot go and rescue [person X]," when person X got in trouble because of illegal activity they were performing - and there are few more effective methods of making someone adopt the stance espoused by your proposed note, "I forbid you from rescuing me," than making the practice illegal. So, essentially, I agree, I just think this is the proper way for Nepal to go about de-prioritizing this particular problem. :)
  - mindfulplay 9y ago
ordinaryperson 9y ago
Just hiking to Everest Base Camp and nearby Kala Pattar (8.5 days, ~18,500 ft) was brutal for me -- and that was with porters carrying my heavier gear. Hopefully this will save the lives of a few Sherpas (who, btw, are an ethnic group; it's not a job title). They're inevitably tasked with attempting to save rich Western idiots doing stupid stuff like climb Everest without support. I'd just add my personal experience on the mountain: it's hard to describe how brutal Everest is. You're so cold and so tired and so out of it, 99% of us (those without natural-born mountaineering gifts) being up there unaided is just a recipe for disaster. Next I'd like to see the Nepalese government double the Everest permit fee (currently $11,000) and pass $$ onto Sherpas. Doubt it will happen, but this is at least a small victory.
- dilyevsky 9y ago
  So your ego was bruised by some trek and your solution is to ruin it for everyone else? "rich Western idiot" logic. Also just fyi - most sherpas die supporting guided climbs not rescuing solo climbers.
  - majos 9y ago
    I don't know what the relevant statistics actually are, but if the death rate for sherpas rescuing solo climbers is higher than that for sherpas supporting guided climbs -- even if the total number of deaths is lower -- this still suggests reducing the number of solo rescues, no? Especially since, as far as I can tell, supporting guided climbs is way more economically important.
    - dilyevsky 9y ago
      human lives aren't usually fungible so your accounting method strikes me as a bit strange.
fergie 9y ago
If you haven't read them already, I really recommend the following two books: "Into Thin Air" by John Krakauer was the first book to critically explore the "Death Zone" and the state of mountaineering on Everest generally- It was written in 1997, but is just as relevant now. "Dark Shadows Falling" by Joe Simpson is another commentary on the state of mountaineering on Everest in 1997. Simpson was famously left for dead on a high altitude climb (described in "Touching The Void"), so he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind".
- golergka 9y ago
  > he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind" I got curious and read a wikipedia article about the book; from the summary, I don't see any special "morals" about the incident: one mountaineer had a reason to believe another one dead and saved himself, without knowingly leaving anyone behind. Is wikipedia summary incorrect?
  - elcapitan 9y ago
    I think the questionable (in terms of traditional mountaineering ethics, I guess) was that Simon Yates had to cut off his partners rope. It's probably the pragmatic thing to do there, but that was definitely the part that was discussed afterwards. He had to assume that he was dead after that, that part was never questioned. On the other hand, he stayed at their basecamp for a prolonged time (if I remember it correctly), which in the end helped Joe, who crawled back there through the glacier with his broken bones and almost dead from dehydration. So he still somehow believed in the miracle that happened.
  - fergie 9y ago
    You should read the book.
- holografix 9y ago
  John K’s book should be mandatory reading for anyone attempting an Everest climb. The authenticity of emotion JK spills onto the pages of this book, regardless of how well or otherwise it portrays certain people, including himself is just moving. Here’s a man clearly traumatised by this most harrowing sequence of events and when begged by his editors to “sleep on it” for a few months before he writes anything he responds with a “no. I dont want time to blunt my recollection.” At the beginning of the book the highlights an exchange he had with his wife at the airport as he departs to Kathmandu, the background being the relationship was severely strained by his obsession with climbing. He says “Don’t be melodramatic, I’m not gonna die”.
vwcx 9y ago
On a related note, a team has just set off to attempt a summit of K2 in winter -- a feat thought physically impossible: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/K2-mountain-winter-climb-poland-spd/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/K2-mountain-wint...

171 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

As someone with some mountaineering experience in North America, I am really surprised to hear that they ever allowed this in the first place. Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do, but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains. And you can only search for so many people. I think it is reasonable to expect that those who plan to climb such scary mountains find someone to accompany them.

teej 9y ago
This regulation is for foreign climbers. I don’t think people expect full personal liberty in a foreign country.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Well, some do, but what they expect and what they actually have a right to, are different things.
__s 9y ago
> but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains It's two distinct groups. If there is overlap there'll likely be ideas like fining someone after a rescue unless they have insurance, & then leaving it up to insurance companies to decide about solo climber coverage
- harigov 9y ago
  Good point. My point is that some people don't think about the consequences of what they are asking for, unless prompted for it, and they usually have ideas that are contradictory. Of course, your point still stands and I agree alternatives should be considered as well. However, I am still in support of forcing people to go in groups because it is safer. I don't have data, but I do believe from experience that there is safety in numbers.
  - matt-attack 9y ago
    Regarding people not thinking about the consequences, I’d say that mistake typically falls in lawmakers. Lawmaker: “hmm, motorcyclists without helmets put too much of a financial burden on hospitals, so let’s outlaw helmetless riding.” Instead of infringing on civil liberties why not target the problem at hand? Mandate specific insurance, or self-insurance, etc. in order to ride in that manner. Same could be said here. If there is a specific financial bidder you’re trying to solve, then create a focused law that specifically aims to resolve the point at hand. I really hate these broad-stroke lazy regulations. I’d like to think professional lawmakers would be experts at this.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      I'm not sure I agree with respect to things like helmetless riding - I've not quite made my mind up. But I'd suggest that one thing that ought to be done with all law is that the law ought to specify "acceptance criteria" that specify what the law is setting out to fix, and courts ought to be able to set aside laws if they can be proven to not meet the stated goal, and interpret them more narrowly if they can be shown to not be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal. I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down. A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".
amorphid 9y ago
> Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do If I were in charge (I never will be), my first inclination would be to not restrict high risk climbing. But then I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that a hands off approach would be that simple. I'd want to understand the drawbacks of people dying on the mountain. I'd be concerned with being responsible for rescue costs, being vilified for not making rescue attempts, the cost of medical treatments, the lives lost in attempting to make rescues, any correlations between deaths & the number of climbing attempts made (is it scaring people away, attracting even more, etc.), how the press coverage affects Nepal's public image, and so on. In the end, banning high risk climbing might simply be a good & conservative decision.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I’d say, let them climb how they want, but mandate full insurance coverage for any needed evacuation, medical treatment, and corpse removal. As long as people don’t litter or pass costs along to others, the rest could be up to them.
  - aglionby 9y ago
    I'm not sure that's the point though -- once you're up there these things are dangerous rather than just expensive. bhickey has a post further down which explains their experience nicely.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I’m aware that rescue and corpse removal is highly dangerous, but that just means the insurance would be extremely expensive.
droithomme 9y ago
> the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains You posit a valuable and worthwhile hypothesis. I would appreciate it if you could show conclusive evidence that any solo climber of Everest who died requested as you claim that "government go search" when they went missing. Thank you.
- harigov 9y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the people who are climbing are the ones who are asking govt to go search for them if them go missing. I am talking about people, who in general ask for liberty in such matters while also asking govt to provide search and rescue operations to deal with any fallouts. I am sure you would ask me for data to show conclusive evidence of this happening and my answer is that I have none.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    There also isn’t really an alternative - and if I’m paying taxes for the services of course I’m going to use them while I am forced to pay for them. I have no problem paying, personally, but I don’t really like the line of reasoning used in your comment.
akkat 9y ago
How about forcing them to leave some money as collateral or forcing climbers to get insurance like with scuba divers?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cyberferret 9y ago

I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it. Plus, I would hate to think that you would become just a nameless waypoint or turning marker on the way to the summit, much as poor 'Green Boots' and others have become. (though I believe 'Green Boots' has been removed now?) EDIT: It appears that 'Green Boots' is still on the mountain, and has not been removed as previously thought. [0] [0] - http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/05/27/everest-2017-weekend-update-may-27/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/05/27/everest-2017-week...

InclinedPlane 9y ago
Everest is the worst example of mountaineering. For many it's just an achievement, not an experience, not something that's worthwhile on its own merits. And in that light it makes it more obvious why so many people fall into the trap of tackling it unprepared. Many people don't understand how challenging it can be and they think that if they just struggle through and be miserable for a few days they'll come out the other end with a shiny brass ring they can decorate their life with, something that will serve as bragging rights and help define who they are as a person for their life. It's really not much different than, say, college, for that matter. When you have people who have been rewarded so much for gaming the system, when you have people who struggle constantly in the search for authenticity and meaning in their life they are prone to try to fake their way through.
- whatever_dude 9y ago
  I can't speak for climbers from other countries, but I feel that the American attitude towards achievements like "climbing mountain X" is that they want exactly that, a checkmark on a list. They want to get in and get out as fast as possible. The destination is the goal, and everything in between is just noise that should be overcome as swiftly as possible. This is, at least, my anedoctal experience. I go hiking recreational level hills with (American) friends frequently and it always annoys me how they just want to get to the top as soon as possible and then come back down just as quickly. I instead frequently stop on my way to look around and admire the view (and not just at officially sanctioned "lookout points") and this is something they never have any inclination on doing.

basicplus2 9y ago

Why ban solo climbing? If an idiot wants to do something stupid, why interfere with natural selection? And why waste money looking for them?

ceejayoz 9y ago
If nothing else, I'd imagine it's nicer for everyone else not to have to step over a pile of dead bodies to get up the mountain.
- ansible 9y ago
  There's already more than a few bodies up there now. Some are a little famous, like the green boots guy. The bodies can't be removed. It's such an extreme environment. You can't really rescue people who are in trouble. At best, with multiple climbers, you can have someone else tell you that you shouldn't proceed, which might save your life. But if someone is already in trouble, you can't really help out, or you will die too. Sure, if you have an extra energy bar, you can give that to your buddy, but that's about it.
  - bhickey 9y ago
    > There's already more than a few bodies up there now. Some are a little famous, like the green boots guy. The bodies can't be removed. The Times just had an interesting feature on Everest body recovery: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everest-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everes...
    - CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
      This. The linked article's title is "Deliverance From 27,000 Feet". It's been posted on HN four times (see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Finteractive%2F2017%2F12%2F18%2Fsports%2Feverest-deaths.html&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ), but I believe first post is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15951204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15951204 Although the main theme of the article is about the recovery of a body from near the summit, it has background information on when climbs can take place, and how the route to the summit is established every year. IMO, it's a worthwhile read!

osrec 9y ago

Everest is an absolute beast of a climb. Even with preparation and a full team, lives can be (and have been) lost. Going it alone, while remarkable, is extremely deadly and Nepal is doing the responsible thing by banning such endeavours. For other teams of climbers also, it's one of the more sinister (and perhaps annoying) things - when you're doing well on your climb, but your good nature makes you abort your effort for some random twit alone and in trouble halfway up a mountain.

starpilot 9y ago
It has no technical challenge from the standard "tourist" route and mainly presents economic obstacles, in that it costs as much as an SUV. Most people in decent health could train for a year and summit successfully. It is the mountaineering equivalent of reading an entire encyclopedia. Sheer volume of effort is all it takes.
- osrec 9y ago
  While I agree that most people can do it, it's a very large undertaking often lasting 30-40 days. A lot can go wrong in that time, including ill health or injury. That's why having others with you makes sense.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  That assumes everything goes well. When things start to not go well then the survival outcomes start changing dramatically based on who has more preparation and experience.

sgregnt 9y ago

Why not sell individual permits and make it so expansive that it covers the rescue?

gtirloni 9y ago
It's hard to put a price on the certain lives of rescuers that will be lost (given enough rescue missions).
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Just tell the climbers in advance they will not mount rescue missions for people who do not meet a minimum threshold of competence and preparation.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    How about not mounting publicly funded rescue missions at all? You can pay for insurance if you want someone to risk their life to come get you.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      Although Everest is a bit of an outlier here - this is a dangerous sentiment to hold if someone actually holds it.
  - grahamannett 9y ago
    they already do this. theres a huge amount of luck that factors into a summit for a ton of climbs. they spend weeks just acclimating let alone the amount of preparation prior to their climbs (and the fact that people who want to just pay to summit are not physically capable or even allowed up, theres actual physical confrontations by guides to head back more often than you'd think). theres a reason people are left for dead and walk back to camps in the middle of the night (beck weathers is the de facto example) and its because they are so incredibly competent and prepared that they are able to survive but at extreme costs to themselves and those around

staunch 9y ago

And there goes my cheap cryogenics backup plan...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

senatorobama 9y ago

Now ban Denali.

bhickey 9y ago

I'd rather see Nepal ban fixed ropes and yank the ladder off the Hillary Step, but that'd kill the whole industry.

hprotagonist 9y ago
i’m with you. No serious alpinists do much of anything on everest these days, and it’s hard to do a rational cost/benefit for the fees of well-heeled tourists versus the rights of the sherpas and the state of the mountain.
- grahamannett 9y ago
  im always curious where the notion that 'everest is the worlds highest stair stepper' comes from. everyone i know whos a serious alpinist still holds it in pretty high regards for any number of reasons. which serious alpinists no longer do much on everest? of course its not a climb for mountaineers trying to put up a new route/make news due to the fact its the most climbed 8ker but i can think of 3 big names still guiding it regularly and conrad anker who may be the "most famous" mountaineer summited in 2012 according to his wiki. i could see honnold trying to summit everest in the next few years as well.
  - dillondoyle 9y ago
    Why would Honnold commit to spending two months AWAY from rock? He struggles with just a single 'rest' day which for him usually means running up a mountain (not snowy technical). I assume you mean Alex Honnold the rock climber...
  - hprotagonist 9y ago
    Andrew Bisharat (http://eveningsends.com/everest-is-not-for-climbers/ http://eveningsends.com/everest-is-not-for-climbers/) But what this sad story reaffirms, to me, is that Everest is not for climbers. It’s for guides and clients, and all the infrastructure that goes into getting a large mass of people up the same two routes, as more than 3,000 people have done in the last 60 years. The mountain has been fully co-opted by the guide culture, and it seems as though there isn’t any room—logistically, if nothing else—for “real” climbers to go climbing as a small team, and demonstrate the self-reliance and skill that normally goes into climbing almost any other mountain. the long and short of it is that Everest is not where The Hard Stuff Up High is. That's K2, Meru, Annapurna, Cerro Torre... Honnold is not really much of an alpinist, and I doubt he'll ever do Everest ... but he did just spend a month crushing in Antarctica. (guided) mountaineering and alpinism are very different beasts, and Everest is a guided mountain (now). Fixed ropes, O2, guides, lines, litter. Judging by the last few years of trip reports in the AAC journal, the people who want to rack up and stomp off into the mountains alone or with one or two partners are going elsewhere.

ryannevius 9y ago

It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something). There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-everest-fastest-known-time https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-...

paulcole 9y ago
Seems like there’s doubts that Kilian submitted at all. Personally, I think he did, but as of now there’s really no proof. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8591724 http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8591724 Edit: Why downvote this? Is there any evidence Kilian submitted beyond his word?
- justinator 9y ago
  Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?
  - paulcole 9y ago
    >What then, does he need to prove? That he has been to the summit. Just for the sake of argument, the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back? Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? I know he’s a beast and GOAT but he’s still human.
    - justinator 9y ago
      > the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back? The guy is a living legend in his 20's. He's already failed on Everest before, in 2016. What pressure do you think Salomon has on Jornet? Salomon is a 700 million dollar a year in revenue company, whose parent company has yearly revenue in the billions. They got the scratch and Jornet is Salomon's top athlete, no question about it. I don't even think Salomon was the sole, or even main sponsor. His blog lists Mercedes Benz a b.s. luxury brand that seems to be what's needed as the catalyst for large expeditions into the Himalayas that has nothing to do with mountaineering. The big money in sponsorship (as an athlete) is in racing, not mountaineering. But Jornet has literally won every race there is to win! Salomon is sponsoring Jornet even though he doesn't do what a sponsors runner is supposed to do - because he's his own weather system of getting eyeballs interested in the brands that sponsor him - he doesn't need UTMB, or any other ultra race anymore. He can compete in them for fun, when he wants to. Take it from me, there's little if no money in setting FKTs, and only the Jornet's of the world could pull it off. His sponsors aren't pushing for him to do this stuff, he's telling his sponsors what he's doing, the sponsors put up the hype, and they all make a lot of money. > Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? No, he was not disqualified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyRew7lr5eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyRew7lr5eE There's little to no money in being a professional ultra runner. A little little better in Europe, but the only dude I know that makes a living as a pro ultra runner is so injured, he can't even run. It honestly doesn't matter: he has a huge social media following, and he gets people excited for the brand. He makes a living not running (he doesn't coach, he doesn't put on his own race, nothing). He makes pennies to Jornet's dollars. Believe me, Jornet's doing fine, and wouldn't need to fake a summit bid. Remember too, he summited twice in that one trip.

throwawaylalala 9y ago

Killian Journet just ran to the top twice, solo. No supplemental oxygen. Looks like his record will stand.

paulcole 9y ago
Did he start on the Nepalese or Chinese side? I haven’t seen this mentioned in any articles about him.
- throwawaylalala 9y ago
  They discuss base camp a lot, so I believe it was Nepal. Certainly it could be China, but I think they would have highlighted that. Also, he did it without fixed ropes.
  - grahamannett 9y ago
    http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web17s/newswire-kilian-jornet-makes-two-rapid-everest-ascents http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web17s/newswire-kilian-jornet-ma... north col is tibet

mindfulplay 9y ago

Nepal has more basic things to worry about. Sorry. Some rich dude hanging at the edge of some cliff should be problem number 58299 in their or my list. This is gone crazy. At least have a written note that forbids anyone from saving their life if it comes to it. They put their own life and the rescuers' lives at risk. Everytime someone proudly says 'i climbed the Everest ' oh cool, I immediately think, who is the sherpa? They get my praise. Not some rich, over priveleged dude who thinks the rest of the world has to bend to their will for whatever sordid privileged game they are interested in playing.

paulcole 9y ago
Rich dudes don’t climb solo. They pay six figures for guided expeditions with all the trimmings.
- mindfulplay 9y ago
  That's even worse. If it's for Instagram selfie pleasure I have better ideas for these people.
  - praneshp 9y ago
    Yeah, but your idea sucks. I prefer Everest for my selfie.
Fordrus 9y ago
Well, banning the practice is the first step towards doing exactly that. The whole world is a lot more understanding of the stance, "Sorry, we cannot go and rescue [person X]," when person X got in trouble because of illegal activity they were performing - and there are few more effective methods of making someone adopt the stance espoused by your proposed note, "I forbid you from rescuing me," than making the practice illegal. So, essentially, I agree, I just think this is the proper way for Nepal to go about de-prioritizing this particular problem. :)
- mindfulplay 9y ago

ordinaryperson 9y ago

Just hiking to Everest Base Camp and nearby Kala Pattar (8.5 days, ~18,500 ft) was brutal for me -- and that was with porters carrying my heavier gear. Hopefully this will save the lives of a few Sherpas (who, btw, are an ethnic group; it's not a job title). They're inevitably tasked with attempting to save rich Western idiots doing stupid stuff like climb Everest without support. I'd just add my personal experience on the mountain: it's hard to describe how brutal Everest is. You're so cold and so tired and so out of it, 99% of us (those without natural-born mountaineering gifts) being up there unaided is just a recipe for disaster. Next I'd like to see the Nepalese government double the Everest permit fee (currently $11,000) and pass $$ onto Sherpas. Doubt it will happen, but this is at least a small victory.

dilyevsky 9y ago
So your ego was bruised by some trek and your solution is to ruin it for everyone else? "rich Western idiot" logic. Also just fyi - most sherpas die supporting guided climbs not rescuing solo climbers.
- majos 9y ago
  I don't know what the relevant statistics actually are, but if the death rate for sherpas rescuing solo climbers is higher than that for sherpas supporting guided climbs -- even if the total number of deaths is lower -- this still suggests reducing the number of solo rescues, no? Especially since, as far as I can tell, supporting guided climbs is way more economically important.
  - dilyevsky 9y ago
    human lives aren't usually fungible so your accounting method strikes me as a bit strange.

fergie 9y ago

If you haven't read them already, I really recommend the following two books: "Into Thin Air" by John Krakauer was the first book to critically explore the "Death Zone" and the state of mountaineering on Everest generally- It was written in 1997, but is just as relevant now. "Dark Shadows Falling" by Joe Simpson is another commentary on the state of mountaineering on Everest in 1997. Simpson was famously left for dead on a high altitude climb (described in "Touching The Void"), so he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind".

golergka 9y ago
> he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind" I got curious and read a wikipedia article about the book; from the summary, I don't see any special "morals" about the incident: one mountaineer had a reason to believe another one dead and saved himself, without knowingly leaving anyone behind. Is wikipedia summary incorrect?
- elcapitan 9y ago
  I think the questionable (in terms of traditional mountaineering ethics, I guess) was that Simon Yates had to cut off his partners rope. It's probably the pragmatic thing to do there, but that was definitely the part that was discussed afterwards. He had to assume that he was dead after that, that part was never questioned. On the other hand, he stayed at their basecamp for a prolonged time (if I remember it correctly), which in the end helped Joe, who crawled back there through the glacier with his broken bones and almost dead from dehydration. So he still somehow believed in the miracle that happened.
- fergie 9y ago
  You should read the book.
holografix 9y ago
John K’s book should be mandatory reading for anyone attempting an Everest climb. The authenticity of emotion JK spills onto the pages of this book, regardless of how well or otherwise it portrays certain people, including himself is just moving. Here’s a man clearly traumatised by this most harrowing sequence of events and when begged by his editors to “sleep on it” for a few months before he writes anything he responds with a “no. I dont want time to blunt my recollection.” At the beginning of the book the highlights an exchange he had with his wife at the airport as he departs to Kathmandu, the background being the relationship was severely strained by his obsession with climbing. He says “Don’t be melodramatic, I’m not gonna die”.

vwcx 9y ago

On a related note, a team has just set off to attempt a summit of K2 in winter -- a feat thought physically impossible: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/K2-mountain-winter-climb-poland-spd/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/K2-mountain-wint...