UKC

No Unguided Climbing On 8000ers AND 7000ers

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Damo 27 Mar 2014
http://www.montagna.tv/cms/58284/english-no-climbing-on-everest-sans-local-...

"The proposal to be tabled jointly by the Ministry and the Nepal Mountaineering Association (NMA) has it that climbing expeditions will have to hire two local guides for every two mountaineers for peaks above 8,000 m, and one local guide for every three climbers for peaks above 7,000m."

You get what you settle for.
 Doug 27 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

Just as well Ueli Steck soloed Annapurna last year

Guess for more technical alpine style routes this means paying someone to sit in base camp for a few weeks?

OP Damo 27 Mar 2014
In reply to Doug:
> Just as well Ueli Steck soloed Annapurna last year

Yep. No more of that.

> Guess for more technical alpine style routes this means paying someone to sit in base camp for a few weeks?

Yes, possibly. Like taking the current lies, incompetence, corruption and inefficiencies of the Liaison Officer system - and multiplying it by several hundred.

Always worth remembering in these situations that the head of the NMA, Ang Tshering, is also the owner of Asian Trekking, the large Nepali commercial guiding & trekking operation. Suffice to say he stands to profit from the introduction of such regulation.
Post edited at 11:54
 crayefish 27 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

Good for their economy I guess.

Not sure how else it will help though... the solo/alpine climbers are generally much better at not littering etc than all the bloody tourist climbers who are climbing with guides.

People will just have to climb 6,900ers and accidently go off course
 Dave Garnett 27 Mar 2014
In reply to Doug:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> Just as well Ueli Steck soloed Annapurna last year
>

Yes, you have to wonder whether they had his punch-up on Everest in mind when they came up with this. Can't have independent trouble-makers wandering about wherever they like when others are being guided, can we?
 OwenM 27 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

There are other mountains outside Nepal.
needvert 27 Mar 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> Good for their economy I guess.

Hmm just looking at wikipedia...GDP per capita (nominal):

Nepal: 743
UK: 40,879


Wow. I sure don't blame them.
OP Damo 27 Mar 2014
In reply to OwenM:

> There are other mountains outside Nepal.

Yes, I've been to a few of them.

But:
1. The NMA is presenting this to the other 'Himalayan' countries as something good to do, a logical step - so is China next? They've brought in similar in Ecuador >5000m and are still pushing for it in Peru.
2. That 'so what, who cares, let it go' attitude is what has created this problem and fostered the situation on Everest to begin with.
OP Damo 27 Mar 2014
In reply to needvert:

> Hmm just looking at wikipedia...GDP per capita (nominal):
> Nepal: 743
> UK: 40,879
> Wow. I sure don't blame them.

Sure, but you're assuming these new funds will go primarily to people who need it and not to bureaucrats. The history of Nepal says otherwise.
 Ander 28 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

You're kinda right.

By making it profitable, the economic effects will include the diversion of Nepalese resources from investment in skills and infrastructure into sitting around at the bottom of mountains.

If the objective was 'economic' I'd argue it would be better to tax foreign visitors, and provide improved infrastructure and training throughout Nepal. Nepalese people could then be paid to undertake more activities with higher 'utility'.

If, on the other hand the objective were to ensure that guiding business owners could capture a bigger share of the economic pie, then insisting foreigners employ 'guides' would be a good measure to introduce.
Tim Chappell 28 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

Cue a big push on high 6000ers, I should think.
 Mr. Lee 28 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

It's very difficult to not be cynical given that it is strictly local guides that need to be employed. If it was genuinely about the safety of climbers then there wouldn't be the requirement for the guide to be Nepalese. Really they should just put up fees rather than looking for stealthy ways to increase revenue. If safety was the priority then better to put the emphasis on the overseas companies to ensure better safety standards (given they are the ultimate employer).

Also, to me it's an invasion of freedom. Fair enough they charge whatever for permits, LOs, etc (take it or leave it after all) but when rules mean you need to climb a peak with somebody that you have likely never met before then that in itself brings dangers. I've done very little high altitude stuff but I would want to climb with partners that I am familiar with, and whom I know I will maintain a good morale around on a long trip. Also, presumably these rules will indirectly rule-out Alpine-style attempts? Who in their right minds are going to rope up as a three with a third person they have never met? Big siege-style attempts probably account for 99% of permits so I doubt the NMA care.
OP Damo 28 Mar 2014
In reply to Mr. Lee:

> It's very difficult to not be cynical given that it is strictly local guides that need to be employed. If it was genuinely about the safety of climbers then there wouldn't be the requirement for the guide to be Nepalese. Really they should just put up fees rather than looking for stealthy ways to increase revenue. If safety was the priority then better to put the emphasis on the overseas companies to ensure better safety standards (given they are the ultimate employer).

If they put up the official peak fees, more money would just disappear into the government. This move is driven by a handful of guiding companies, as they will get to employ the 'guides' from whom they will get kickbacks, just like most jobs in Nepal. It's just more revenue and influence for these businesses. In theory it would mean more crowding on the mountain, which would indeed be too ridiculous, but I think we all know these 'guides' will never go above BC, if they get there at all.

> Also, to me it's an invasion of freedom. Fair enough they charge whatever for permits, LOs, etc (take it or leave it after all) but when rules mean you need to climb a peak with somebody that you have likely never met before then that in itself brings dangers. I've done very little high altitude stuff but I would want to climb with partners that I am familiar with, and whom I know I will maintain a good morale around on a long trip. Also, presumably these rules will indirectly rule-out Alpine-style attempts? Who in their right minds are going to rope up as a three with a third person they have never met?

Funny you mention that, as the UIAA has a draft thing going around that states:
"Should a guide be mandatory, this will go against individual freedom and can seriously jeopardise the safety of mountaineers."

>Big siege-style attempts probably account for 99% of permits so I doubt the NMA care.

Exactly, and a lot of people won't care either, because the bulk of visitors are now on commercially guided trips to just a few peaks. If the regs are enforced, only a small minority will be impacted - it just happens to be the minority whose actions have historically shaped mountaineering into something that makes it attractive to a wider audience - small, skilled, competent teams of adventurous people taking on challenges using their own faculties and taking responsibility for their own risks and efforts. Not paying impoverished brown people to assume both the risk and work for them to make it easier.
 OwenM 28 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

>
> 2. That 'so what, who cares, let it go' attitude is what has created this problem and fostered the situation on Everest to begin with.

My comment wasn't "who cares" more go and climb the other mountains where there isn't a demand for so called guides or peak fees etc. Their only dreaming up these charges now because people like you have paid up in the past. If everyone had said "No" in the first place we wouldn't have this problem now.

 John Kelly 28 Mar 2014
In reply to needvert:

yip its a terrible thing to see the Nepalese jackboot on the neck of humanity - shame on them.

Nepal: 743
UK: 40,879

that would make us 55 times richer
OP Damo 28 Mar 2014
In reply to OwenM:

> My comment wasn't "who cares" more go and climb the other mountains where there isn't a demand for so called guides or peak fees etc. Their only dreaming up these charges now because people like you have paid up in the past. If everyone had said "No" in the first place we wouldn't have this problem now.

1. I've never been to Everest
2. I've been to Nepal four times and only paid peak fees once. I've done around 15 expeditions to Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Antarctica, China and Tibet.
3. Nepal has a right to charge peak fees, and other fees, and we don't really have the right to just say 'no' as if they are 'wrong' to do so.
4. So the issue is not the money, its the spread of nonsensical, corrupt and possibly even dangerous practices spreading from Everest to other peaks.
OP Damo 28 Mar 2014
In reply to John Kelly:
> yip its a terrible thing to see the Nepalese jackboot on the neck of humanity - shame on them.


Nice try. With regard to porters or guides, I and most climbers I know, would rather give, say, $600 directly to the actual person doing the work, than pay $300 to a company who take $100 for themselves and give $200 to a guy who just sits around and does nothing, if he even turns up at all.

One of the worst things about Nepal is that Nepalis have the jackboot on the necks of other Nepalis - the recent 'fake orphan' scam being a prime example. Inefficient, misconceived cash-grabs like these new regulations just foster and enforce that exploitation, missing an opportunity to do something better. Most of the westerners will just pay up because they can afford it, and the cycle turns again, only with a few guys in KTM now just a little bit richer.
Post edited at 22:15
 John Kelly 29 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

you are on a different planet - no climber (or for that matter living being) would pay double to the 'actual person' for the same work as a 'reputable' company, invariably these relationships are to save cost, often tax.

I am unsurprised that Nepali's are a bit tough on each other - at best this is capitalism kicking in and hopefully there will be trickle down in the future as for the orphans we ourselves have a long history of abusing the most vulnerable in society - in 18C they were found to just fit nicely up a chimney

'westerners will just pay up because they can afford it' - just what the Nepalis think
OP Damo 29 Mar 2014
In reply to John Kelly:

> you are on a different planet - no climber (or for that matter living being) would pay double to the 'actual person' for the same work as a 'reputable' company,

I've done it. Did it six months ago, would do it again. As do other people I know. If I can pay the person directly then I am happy to pay over the 'going rate' that a company would pay because the going rate is a disgrace.
 John Kelly 29 Mar 2014
In reply to Damo:

i stand corrected and fair play
john
 Mr. Lee 31 Mar 2014
In reply to John Kelly:

> you are on a different planet - no climber (or for that matter living being) would pay double to the 'actual person' for the same work as a 'reputable' company, invariably these relationships are to save cost, often tax.

I think you're wrong. It's the same in Pakistan and no doubt other places like Nepal. In Pakistan there's a standard porter rate, which as an individual such as you or me would pay. Big companies, because of the volume of porters hired, can offer a lower rate of pay to porters. So when you go through a trekking company less money trickles through to the hired labour than if hired directly.
 John Kelly 31 Mar 2014
In reply to Mr. Lee:

I don't think I suggested that porters would be worse off if hired individually

what i questioned was that climbers would pay more to an individual porter than they would to a reputable company providing porters

I believe that in most cases the climber will save money hiring the porters directly (they save the cost of admin and local taxes)

where i was very wrong was to say 'no climber (or for that matter living being)' would pay more because Damo does just that and i applaud him for that

hope that make some sense john
almost sane 01 Apr 2014
In reply to Damo:

At the same time, the Indian Mountaineering Foundation is cutting its peak fees in half for 2014 and 2015.

In this global market, if the fees are too high then folks can just go to the Andes rather than the Himalayas.

Also, there is a fair bit of climbing mountains in the Himalayas without permits. Away from the touristy areas, policing is very difficult. And local operators will often do a deal with western climbers that cuts out officialdom because the locals see no benefit in the centralised system.
OP Damo 01 Apr 2014
In reply to almost sane:

> At the same time, the Indian Mountaineering Foundation is cutting its peak fees in half for 2014 and 2015.

This was my Plan A this year, but I binned it. They reneged on removing the Uttarakhand extra fees, and IMF fees really aren't that much anyway.

> In this global market, if the fees are too high then folks can just go to the Andes rather than the Himalayas.

Yes. Plenty of good stuff still to do in Peru and the Andes just north and south of Aconcagua.

> Also, there is a fair bit of climbing mountains in the Himalayas without permits. Away from the touristy areas, policing is very difficult. And local operators will often do a deal with western climbers that cuts out officialdom because the locals see no benefit in the centralised system.

This is what a Mumbai friend does, and several of my trips have been completely 'unauthorised' (not in India). The IMF know this is the situation in Himachal at least and would like to change it but clearly have no idea how to. Plenty of places in India could be the 'new Cordillera Blanca' in terms of accessible groups of nice peaks, if the binned the LO scheme and opened things up. Fat chance, it seems...
 alasdair19 02 Apr 2014
In reply to Damo:

Are the uttarkand fees still brutal? does this cover the Kumoan as well as the garwal?
OP Damo 02 Apr 2014
In reply to alasdair19:

Yes, it covers Kumaon. I originally enquired about a peak near Panch Chuli.

The Uttarkhand fees are, per team:
600 quid up to 6500m
650 quid 6500-7000m

http://www.indmount.org/uttarakhandfeeandtarriff.aspx

This is on top of the basic IMF peak fees:
US$500 for a team of 2 up to 6500m
US$700 for a team of 2 6500-7000m

http://www.indmount.org/rulesregulations.aspx
 L.A. 02 Apr 2014
In reply to Damo: Even those Uttarkhand fees would be acceptable if you then didnt also have to transport, feed, house and then pay wages from Delhi to an LO who will generally do as little as possible, get in the way and be bugger all use.
If you really still have to have them then why cant the LOs be picked up locally in Uttarkashi/Manali/Leh/Darjeeling etc where there are IMF bases and where, if they were local, they might just have some knowledge of what they were doing and where they were going.
And dont start me on X visas !!!
 BrainoverBrawn 03 Apr 2014
In reply to John Kelly:

That would make me 16 times richer but with rent alone and c/tax accounting for 6 times richer in outgoings.
 mlt 05 Apr 2014
In reply to Damo:

Wow. This is alarming and somewhat depressing. Let's hope this is not a future trend followed on lower peaks and by other countries. It's a regulation I can only hope people begin to break with a passion.

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