UKC

Mountain Guides

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dean 12 Nov 2001
Further to the "Lost in Everest's Death Zone" thread - a question. Would there be more or less serious accidents and deaths in the mountains if there were no guides ? i.e. so whether in N. Wales, Scotland, the Alps or the Greater Ranges no guiding allowed.
stonemaster 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: IMHO, less
 CENSORED 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: Ask Dennis M!!
OP Anonymous 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: Sort of related to the topic, where can i train to be a mountain guide??
OP alex 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: Sort of related to the topic, where can i train to be a mountain guide??
Igneous Wok 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: I would have though less in the greater ranges, but far more in the alps and scotland. Certainly people will go into the scottish hills in full winter conditions and head onto avalanche prone ground, guides will steer them away from that. Although there was a guided party avalanched in Scotland not so long ago, wasn't there?
stonemaster 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Igneous Wok: Glenmore Lodge party on avalanche awareness training if I remember correctly.
stonemaster 12 Nov 2001
In reply to alex: If you must, check with the BMC.
Dennis 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean:

Read Reinhold Messner's: 'Everest 2000 - Apex of all Vanities.', and you will have your answer. Walter Bonatti was not the only top rate guide to stop, because of a changing scene...

But ban guiding! Break-up the Alpine Cartel? It would take more than an EC Directive.

Dennis M.
Dave Collier 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dennis:

How do you distinguish between guides and instructors. I for one have learnt a hell of a lot more good practice from instructors than from my contemporaries. And most instructors are guides are they not?
Tom 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dave Collier:

The term 'guide' is used and abused. The BMG/IFMGA guiding certificate covers the UK and Alps, mountain instructors (Winter ML, MIC holders) is UK only. There is no 'guiding' qualification as such for work in the Greater Ranges, although the IFMGA has guidelines for high altitude work. Clearly the work of a leader on a group expedition to the Greater Ranges is very different to the smaller ratios of guiding in the Alps. Clients that join an 'expedition' need to be aware that they won't get the kind of close attention that they would if they were being guided up an Alpine route. Hence expedition operators talk about 'professionally led' teams where members have to have appropriate experience and be relatively self sufficient. Contrary to popular belief, places on e.g. commercial expeditions to Everest, aren't sold thesedays on the basis of being 'guided', as the term 'guided' implies that a client would receive the same kind of tuition that they would in the Alps.
Dean 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean:
I personally think that there would be more accidents everywhere without guides. (By the way I'm not a guide and don't want to be one). I think that people have always and will always have the urge to climb things - we all know that feeling eh? Sometimes that urge is more powerful than our knowledge/technique/ability. Whilst one could say deny that urge, many haven't and guides have been used to bridge that gap, certainly since the start of serious Alpine exploration.
I think I'm right in saying Mont Blanc has killed more people than any other mountain - would less people die on it if it wasn't guided ? I think not - less people would attempt it for sure, but of those more would get in trouble. Many of us will have seen woefully ill prepared unguided parties chancing their arms - there would be proportionately more such parties without guides.
In the higher altitude game, the word "guide" is patently the wrong one. Hired professional would be more like it. It reminds me of rich amateur polo players, who hire the best players in the world to enable them to play at a level they could never normally attain. Anyone that goes on a guided trip, thinking they are guaranteed a safe trip must be mad. I think people should have the right to hire the best people to climb with them, but their should be no tears if they come to an untimely demise. The real dilema comes when someone is blatantly unprepared for the mountain, and against all advice continues to climb it. When they need a rescue from the same people that told them not to climb it, what happens then? This scenario could happen more often without guides I think.
 Michael Ryan 12 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean:

Generally I would say more deaths and less respect for the mountain environment. Qualified Mountain guides not only train, guide and instruct their clients, they are also environmental educators.....plus they are under-paid and under-valued.

They maybe hairy and smelly but they fulfill a very obvious need.

Full on respect to qualified mountain guides.

Mick
Rockfax USA
John2 13 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: I've made quite a lot of use of guides in the Alps in the last few years for off piste skiing. For those who don't know, the avalanche risk in this sport is considerable. Some of the guides with whom I have skied have skied off piste literally every single day of the season for the past 20 odd years when lifts in the area were open, no matter what the avalanche forecast. I think the fact that they are still alive shows that they are extremely competent professionals,

Skiing with them has improved the quality of my ski holidays immensely. When conditions have been good I have been able to ski fantastic runs that I would not have attempted without a guide. When snow conditions have been thin they have been able (sometimes with the use of touring equipment) to access unskied powder even though it had not snowed for a fortnight. When there was a grade 5 avalanche warning they have known the safe routes to ski in the resort. When all the lifts in the resort were closed because of excess snow they have organised taxi transport to a lower lying resort where skiing was possible (these days have been my best days skiing ever, and I have actually received a refund on my main lift pass for some of them).

Using these guides every morning has added about 15% to the cost of my holidays, but has increased enormously the pleasure I have derived from them.
OP Bob 13 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean: "When they need a rescue from the same people that told them not to climb it, what happens then?"

This reminds me of beach lifeguards in the UK. They can warn people not to surf when conditions are bad, but if they go ahead regardless and then get into trouble, the lifeguards will still rescue them. Presumably mountain guides have a similar lack of authority to actually prevent someone heading out in bad conditions? If these people are still expected to effect a rescue, shouldn't they have some power to turn people away beforehand?
John2 13 Nov 2001
In reply to Bob: There was an instance of this in Val d'Isere a couple of years ago. Three British skiers got lost in bad conditions and had to be rescued from a piste that was closed off because of extreme avalanche danger. They were prosecuted in the French courts for endangering the lives of the workers who rescued them. I can't remember if they were convicted or not - they claimed that they simply got lost in the mist and did not know that they were on a closed piste.
Liz 13 Nov 2001
In reply to Dean:

I don't think that the problem is with guides (be they instructors or IFMGA Guides) but with the commercial organisations that employ them, and with the expectations of the clients who hire them. (And possibly with so-called guides who are not properly qualified). All of those are huge subjects for discussion and no-way can I cover it all here.

In answer to your suggestion that guiding be disallowed': No, don't be silly, you couldn't ban guiding - where would you draw the line? You are still 'guided' whether you use an IFMGA Guide or your mate who's got more experience than you. You could say just 'paid guiding', but it's all paid whether it be with hard cash or getting the beer in at the end of the day. It's all relative. Even novice club members have expectations of the more experienced members, and feel they have a right to these expectations because they've paid a membership fee. We all do it, we all look to someone else to learn and help us along and make things that little bit safer. How could you ban that?

What we really need is to get people to be more realistic in their expectations of guided activities; to be aware that climbing, mountaineering, skiiing etc are all dangerous activities with a real risk of death, and that while a good guide can help you to avoid the pitfalls and will encourage you to exploit your own potential, s/he can't do the activity for you or make you capable of doing something of which you are not capable (usually because of poor fitness or occasionally some other limiting factor).

Some of the conversations amongst both IFMGA Guides and worthy instructors that I've been privy to has made me aware of just how unrealistic many people are about what they expect, and that the guides have to put up with some right a**eholes at times. Those same guides have sometimes exercised their right, however, to refuse a client on the grounds of safety, whether that be due to client incompetency or bad weather conditions. Those are the sort of guides I want to climb with, and I do (and I'm still here!). There would be a lot more accidents without them.

Liz
Miles 13 Nov 2001
In reply to Liz:

Having thought about hiring a guide last time I was skiing and thinking that I MIGHT be good enough to go off piste (but in the end decided that I was not) I have to say that I agree with you.

There would seem to be three types of clients that guides are subjected to:
a) Total idiots - these will go back country what ever. If we are lucky they will take a guide and might survive. With no guides they will go there anyway and probably have a very bad time - witness the snowboarders that die each year with no guide because they were in a daft place and did not know it, or did not realise that the warnings were for real.
b) misguided people - people who really should not be out there and decide not to go following conversations with a good guide, or decide not to try to cross the glacier (etc.) but to go somewhere easy but quite with the guide on his/her advice.
c) the good ones - people who are confident and competent that take a guide because they want local knowledge or support.

It seems to me that without guides at all two things would happen:
1) the idiots and misguided would go out and have a bad time, some would die and the world would exclaim - why were the guide organisations disbanded
2) only the truly competent would be able to get out safely - where would they learn these skills and be able to practice them in safety?

as such banning guides seems to be a daft idea, though the idea of trying to ensure those that are called "professional guides" should be highly trained and able to exercise total discretion in who they will take - i.e. the commercial aspects should be second or even third priority.

Take care - oh and yes next time I go I will probably take a guide out to see what it is like off the beaten track - assuming that I go soon enough not to be so rusty that I have to re-learn all over again!

PS - no disrespect is intended to the unfortunate people that are killed and hurt off piste etc through no fault of their own or the guide - such people are just unlucky not idiots.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...