/ Sponsored climbers and morality

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
j0ntyg on 28 Apr 2014
The man lost the work from four clients at about $30,000 each. He lost money, he is unhappy about that. "for many years now the climbing sherpas have been earning handsomely" That is about $5000 during the two month Everest season compared to the national average wage of between $700 to $900.
But they risk their lives and when they die their families are destitute.
He speaks about the sherpas as though they are extreme left wing trade unionists.
There was a case recently which involved Berghaus making a deal with someone who wanted to turn Honister Pass into Blackpool. They had one of their sponsored climbers to promote that, as he was a member of Friends of the Lake District. But the local councils and Friends of the Lake District refused it. So it was toys out of the pram and resignation.
So if as a sponsored climber you suddenly find that there are people more important than you, so your income is reduced, you should have thought of that years ago.
craigloon - on 28 Apr 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

Where do you see that he is a sponsored climber? Also, he sounds pretty respectful of the Sherpas to me, he's just saying it is a shame that a militant minority are holding the rest to ransom. I don't give a toss about Everest, but the argument is a plausible one.
Howard J - on 28 Apr 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

He won't have pocketed the $30k each, there are the peak fees etc and most of what's left will have gone to the businesses in Nepal which provide the logistics, including paying the sherpas. Whether he's actually lost money will depend on the terms of his contract with the clients - whether they can recover anything will depend on the terms of their insurance.

I fail to see why someone earning more than 5 times the national average wage shouldn't be able to make their own provision for their families in case they are killed or injured. The problem is undoubtedly greater for those sherpas who are not among the elite and who don't get paid such high sums, and greatest of all for the humble porters who get paid very little but may still face risks from weather and altitude.

From what I've read, this is a complex situation where an undoubted tragedy has generated a number of reactions, some of them directly related to the tragedy itself but others may be opportunistic politicking. It looks very messy, and the danger is that it will discourage climbers from attempting Everest from the Nepalese side in future, which will be damaging to their economy.

armus on 28 Apr 2014
In reply to craigloon:
Depends what you mean by "sponsored" The op should have said "paid" not "sponsored". The basic point is still the same. Also, someone in Carlisle says that the version online seems to have been toned down from the printed version. I'll check that tomorrow. The article title on the web from the paper was printed in red not normal blue, which suggested online editing.
armus on 29 Apr 2014
In reply to armus:

The printed version of this story in the paper has this headline:-
'Everest bid "hijacked" by militant sherpas.'

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.