UKC

This statement will be perceived to be controversial, but I have very mixed opinions about crowd funding to raise money to rescue climbers. Climbers going into the mountains do not embark on a death wish, they do not go out wanting to get caught out. That said, when you step out into a mountain environment you have to accept the risk is that you may not come back, and the families of climbers also need to be aware of this and accept they may never see their loved ones again. Especially if they are attempting very difficult routes. I also hold the belief that if people die in the mountains, at least they die doing what they love. ( You may be shocked to read that opinion too!)

I will be the first to accept that climbing is a selfish activity, this is not meant as an attack on people, simply a fact ( and I am a climber) and anyone who does not believe this is deluded. ( I don't expect many on here to read this and feel comfortable accepting it) As humans we embark on many selfish activities. My point is that there are many people in the world who perhaps do not have the opportunity to visit foreign countries, who could use that rescue money in a way to better their lives, ( E.g £150 K would help a lot of people whose lives in Nepal were destroyed by the earthquake ) and that the money offered to embark on a rescue could be better used. That said, we live in an unjust world where politicians squander and waste money in unjust ways as well.

I'm just saying....... and wanted to put this thought out there, thats all.

This is a response to an item shared to me on my FB account about Kyle Dempster and Scott Adamson.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about it. I get crowd funding requests all the time, from climbing wall startups to complete strangers wanting private surgery. Some I donate to, some I do not. In this particular case I'd rather make a donation to a rescue charity that can decide how best to manage those resources ( I have no idea what the organizers of this effort are doing with the money ).

On the subject of rescue money being better used, though, your thinking there is a bit fallacious. Spending $50k on a rescue does not necessarily mean that someone else doesn't get it, or that it could be better used elsewhere. It will be injected into the economy, and who's to say that isn't a better result than helping one individual get back on their feet in Nepal?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Anyone can give money to,
A: Kyle Dempster and Scott Adamson rescue effort
and
B: Nepalese earthquake rescue effort

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I might choose to give to both
causes for different reasons, or not give to one or other of them for some other reasons.

Also just because you say something is a fact doesn't necessarily make it so, I.e. it's not necessarily the case that all climbers are selfish, neither does it follow that these climbers in particular are selfish and even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were any the less worthy of charity than the next man.

Anyway, since these guys are still missing and in light of that this thread seems a bit tight, just for balance here's their appeal.

https://www.gofundme.com/2mjv38k

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

So what would you do if you knew a relative of yours was potentially stuck on a mountain somewhere and a helicopter specifically intended for mountain rescue was parked just a few hours away? Say "oh well, too bad, that's mountaineering". A rescue for what it's worth doesn't actually cost that much so I would hope the surplus money raised would be returned in a charitable fashion somehow. As for the climbers in question, I hope they are found. I'm sure they knew the risks but sometimes the risk of not chasing your ambitions in life is far greater risk, given we all end as ashes eventually anyway.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

In what way is climbing a selfish activity?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I am unclear as to whether the two climbers have not taken out insurance, in case rescue is needed, or if their rescue insurance is not willing to fund rescue attempts. I would have far more sympathy for their case if the latter.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I don't want to say anything with any connection to the current incident.

In general I'd be happy to stump up cash to pay for an incidental that could otherwise not be covered in the timeframe required, such as fuel/airtime for a heli and crew, helping provide a quickly gathered war chest fund for such an effort that sometimes works in less developed economies where billing and credit lines etc. that are later recouped against insurance most probably won't be viable.

However, I'd be uncomfortable for this kind of emergency funding to evolve into a means by which local foot personnel are induced to participate in search and rescue activities that might be beyond their means. Skilled local personnel are a limited and finite resource, as is the effective and safe coordination of those people and any support staff(e.g. supply portering, having ground vehicles on standby at points of access where needed should they be required). I could see this getting out of hand quickly. With people being utilised at a level above that which they are equipped and experienced for if money is being thrown around. Especially so if more than one incident were to happen at once in one place.

I'd hate to see more people getting into bad situations because money was thrown at a problem with the expectation that this could only possibly do good.

In reply to Removed Usersimonridout:

the reporting I have read is that they are insured. I'd imagine it is to pay for how "supply chains" really work in remote areas.
see http://www.climbing.com/news/kyle-dempster-and-scott-adamson-missing-on-pak...

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I think it would be better to encourage people to donate to causes you think are more worthy than to post something that could discourage people from donating to the rescue.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or aggressive, and it's definitely not an accusation, just how I feel about the issue.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

No problem. I was simply expressing my right to free speech.

Climbers are not selfish? I am not seriously going to explain this one to you if you can't see it for yourself.

This is a recent posting- one persons recent Chamonix experience.

Since Sunday I'm back down in the valley and now I feel like I have to write some sentences about the situation up there, even before I'm going to write my report.
At first I was very surprised how clean everything was as I started from Les Houches at the bottom of the valley. It also seemed not very busy or it was maybe just because it was midday or because the most people take the railway or cablecar instead of starting in the valley.
I was already interested if it will change as soon as we hit 'Le Nid d'Aigle', the highest point (2300m) money can bring you (except of a helicopter) or if it will stay. I actually expected it to get worse, but it was fine, all the way so far. The only spot that looked a bit like a mess was the old goûter hut as you leave the rock face and finally hit the glacier up on 3800m. As the hut was build right onto the edge and most of the rubbish got thrown over, there was not much you can do, but it didn't look too bad.
So far I liked it very much, it was almost perfect, all the huts and shelters were clean and also the whole way - at least until you hit the last shelter 'Refuge de Vallot' on 4360m - this looked like the total opposite as I've seen all the way so far. I was wondering how people, no, how mountaineers can do something like this. It was actually covered with rubbish and especially first aid silver/gold foil pieces. The smell was actually not to bad inside, especially after a very bad one just outside the entrance.
At first I want to tell everybody my respect that made it up that high on over 4300m, not a lot of people can handle that, so good on you! I can also understand that some people feel already tired, have already a slight headache or other high altitude sickness symptoms or maybe just before to pass out. That's fine, but there are also plenty of people that feel still good and are able to compensate this. If everybody would take his rubbish with them and just a tiny little piece more, it would look clean and nice again, like everywhere else along the track. A lot of people complained about the mess, the rubbish and the smell, but nobody did something against it. Somebody had to start to do something and so I started to clean up.
It's a interesting feeling if you clean up other peoples shit and everybody around you is just looking strange, looking away or tries do be busy with something else. I didn't care about other people, even if I think it's a pitty that only a few also helped a little bit.
In the end I didn't want to leave before it looked reasonable and I probably spend around 5h to clean it up over two days. It's still not perfect and there is still rubbish up there, but after 3 bags of rubbish and 4 waterbottles on each side of the backpack I reached my capacity.

I actually thought most mountaineers think like I do, they like the freedom, the views from the summit, the nature around them and hate to see this 'signs of civilization' polluting everything. I think it's bad enough to see trash all over the cities and I don't want to see such thinks high up in the mountains.
Somebody asked my on the way down why I've cleaned everything up and I asked back WHY NOT, or is it looking in your house the same as up there? Do you like to live and sleep in rubbish? He also said that foxes come in and tear the foil apart and make a mess, yes that's maybe true, buy you shouldn't forget that humans brought the shit up and they also have to clean it up again, nothing else will. If the people who messed it up are not able to for whatever reason, somebody else have to do it.
Like I said before, if everybody would take this rubish back down again and a little bit more it would like nice again in a very short time. I've started, who's doing the second step?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I definitely agree that anyone setting out in the mountains should plan as if there's no possibility of rescue and never ever rely on mountain rescue or similar.

It's also a good thing to be discussing but like you say I'd steer clear of discussing this individual case.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I totally agree with your sentiment. If I get stuck up a mountain in the back end of nowhere I sincerely hope that someone will set up a crowd funding account to help people in extreme poverty.
That said, although I don't know the 2 climbers in question, I imagine they might be aghast at the idea of a crowd funded rescue themselves.
Also if it was one of my kids I'd probably set up a crowd funded account to try and rescue them!

In reply to Tom Last:

Rescue now called off. Sad times.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

How on earth is an account of somebody tidying up the Refuge Vallot in any way relevant to recent events on Ogre II?

As pointed out above, the need for the fund seems to be because the pair's insurance cannot front the bill for the Pakistani government to scramble all of its available rescue assets.

It seems to me that the bottom line is this: no-one is making you donate to a rescue fund. If you don't feel comfortable in doing so, then don't. But if others want to donate their own money, who are you to question that generosity?

In reply to galpinos:

Sad news indeed. After 14 days in a blizzard with supplies for only 5, hopes are faint.
http://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/alpinism/search-efforts-ended-for-sco...

In reply to galpinos:

Oh that's sad.

In reply to Tom Last:

You can hardly blame the families for taking all possible steps to try to find their missing relatives. What is unclear to me is why they had to resort to crowdfunding when apparently the climbers had the standard American Alpine Club's insurance. Surely this is exactly the sort of situation you'd expect insurance to deal with?

In reply to alexm198:



It's the identity thing that I find disturbing. People donating to help people like themselves even though they don't know them. How many people from other places or other cultures are desperately in need of help right now (through no fault of their own) but will never stir up such an outpouring of empathy from a community which has the means to provide funds? That's why I think it's ok to question people's generosity.
However I totally get why their friends and family are doing all they can to help.

In reply to Removed Usersimonridout:


I'm not quite sure what insurance would cover this or what it would provide anyway. The BMC's insurance for such extreme trips states that initial recovery and rescue would performed by whatever local rescue services existed so it's likely that insurance would be limited to covering any rescue bills received and taking over medical care afterwards.

In reply to BarrySW19:

Yeah I was part of a similar rescue attempt 8 years ago in Pakistan. BMC paid for all costs without problems including the helicopters and land-based search. The problem with Pakistan is that there seems to be a lot of bureaucracy with getting the helicopters airborne. Plus the weather is often a problem. Someone suitable also needs to be found who knows the given mountain who can act as a spotter. Sometimes this ends up being someone from abroad. I was under the impression that it was now a company called Askari Aviation who provided mountain rescue services rather than army. I know they won't consider any action until the money is in their account but an advance deposit ($3000?) can be left with them (they take 10% of this if no action was necessary). Ultimately I think the mindset when climbing in Pakistan is to assume no one will be coming to rescue you any time soon and to plan accordingly. Whether you have appropriate insurance is half the picture.

As for the two alpinists, it's really sad to hear, although seemed the likely outcome given the events. Kyle in particular had done some very impressive climbs over the last 10 years and seemed to do it without the big publicity. I never met him but bounced a number of emails back and forth years ago re information about a peak he was planning to attempt. He seemed super psyched and evidently very talented.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

It was always USD$6,000 in cash or travellers cheques, now apparently $10,000, although if you went with a guided trip this was folded into the overall cost, so many people don't know about it. If you went independent you had to go to the Askari office and hand it over. They kept it right there and gave it all back if you returned unscathed. I've never heard of the 10% thing. Askari was just ex-army types anyway, and used army helos, so were really just an accessible commercial conduit to the only option, the army.


>> Ultimately I think the mindset when climbing in Pakistan is to assume no one will be coming to rescue you any time soon and to plan accordingly. Whether you have appropriate insurance is half the picture.

Agreed, and that was always my approach.

To me the question is why Global Rescue are not able to guarantee up front some of these costs, at least to get things started. Otherwise I don't see the benefit of them, over other expedition insurance that covers rescue.

In reply to nb:


You are posing a false dichotomy. People don't debate "Shall I donate this £XX to climbers' rescue or shall I instead give it to Oxfam?" They give if and when to something that emotionally resonates to them in the moment and there nothing wrong with that.

In reply to Dogwatch:

To be honest I'm not even suggesting that any money donated to this rescue fund would have gone anywhere else anyway. What I am uneasy about is the fact that emotions seem to resonate much more strongly when the person giving can identify with the person in need, no matter the circumstances. Solidarity is great if it doesn't discriminate. Would these same people have rushed to donate for stranded Iranian climbers, or poker players from Louisiana, or Somalians fleeing war?
Identity, whether it be national, religious, cultural, or even community is a strong sentiment which can be used positively but it also comes with a dark side which is so often exploited.

In reply to nb:


I'm not too sure there's any dark side in identifying with other climbers.

In reply to nb:



Of course people are going to feel more like giving to those they identify with, I don't expect anybody to feel the same as I do about my family, friends or community and I in return won't feel the same about anyone else's version of those things. I can empathise, sympathise and help, but I'm not going to feel exactly the same and my response will reflect that, in actions and emotions.

In reply to nb:

You say "Solidarity is great if it doesn't discriminate."
Surely solidarity, of its very nature, does discriminate? If it it doesn't it's empathy, or sympathy, or something similarly distant.

In reply to dgbryan:



Good point. Bloody can of worms this thinking business!

So discrimination is bad, therefore solidarity is bad unless it's universal (let's stick with the human race for now though!)
However anyone deciding to help has to make choices because they can't help everyone in need. Personally I'd rather see people basing this choice on circumstances rather than identity.

In reply to Kevin Duffy:

This is why we have war.

In reply to Dogwatch:

Climbers getting together to discriminate against other minority land users.

Sport climbers and trad climbers in conflict over resources and unable to reason objectively.

Someone making assumptions about another person because they are 'a climber'.

Someone getting an ego boost for being a 'climber'

Climbers considering that saving the life of a fellow climber is priority over other more oppressed people.

Admittedly climber identity doesn't have the same drastic consequences as national or religous identity, but the dark side is there just the same!

In reply to nb:


An ego boost. How awful.

You are either scraping the barrel here for arguments or you are trolling. Either way, I'm out.

In reply to Dogwatch:

You've obviously never been to Chamonix

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

"The climbers, through their memberships with the American Alpine Club (AAC), had what is billed by the AAC as “$12,500 of rescue coverage.” That number breaks down to $7,500 of coverage with Global Rescue...This situation, however, turned out to be different. It wasn’t a rescue that was being requested, but a search. Although Global Rescue could technically arrange a search, it wouldn’t be covered through the climbers’ rescue-coverage plan. In addition, searches are far costlier because they often require more time, helicopter support, and manpower. The GoFundMe page got started because there were so many upfront costs..."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/activities/climbing/crowdfund-r...

In reply to Damo:

Global Rescue sound particularly ill-suited to low key alpine style expeditions based on the above. Wouldn't touch them with a barge pole after this event.

In reply to Damo:

What a strange thread. Everyone arguing over human psychology, selfishness and the "dark side of climbing" and no one asking:

Why is this crowdfund even necessary? Why do the private companies involved (who I assume would have the capital needed) not start the search and then send a bill AFTER the people who's lives are at risk have been found?

Such an American way of doing things. Sorry if that sounds offensive but the USA is currently the world leader in demonstrating the effects of privatisation and everything being done for profit. I remember hearing in certain states you have to pay more before they'll put the sirens on in the ambulance! When visiting friends in the States when I was a toddler, I ended up having to go to hospital with 2nd degree burns from my neck to my stomach (tipped a kettle on myself), and the hospital wouldn't admit us until we could prove we could pay for the treatment. If our friends hadn't been able to bail us out the hospital would have just let me die on their doorstep!

This situation seems similar.

And now the same thing is happening in this country. Within my lifetime almost every public service has been sold off, and yet somehow we have just stood by. How do we let this happen?

Instead of (or possibly as well as) sending money to the GoFundMe, why not send a letter to the AAC/Global Rescue/Askari stating your disgust at their methods of operation and saying you will boycott them until they switch from a "business plan" to a rescue service.

If any service can be run privately for profit, then surely it could be run equally well by a non-profit or government organisation, with the savings on CEO bonuses used to improve the service itself, reduce the cost of the service, or donated to a worthy cause - in this case something related to the local Pakistani population would seem relevant.

In reply to Mr. Lee:


Had Global Rescue cover in Greenland a couple of years ago. I phoned them to get clarification on what was covered - no search and rescue, but if you gave them a GPS location where a helicopter could pick you up, they would get you to the nearest hospital. We worked on the assumption that we were on our own getting any casualty down to base camp.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Given the number of queries and discussion on climbing insurance on this (and other) sites I think it is time for a well-researched independent article on insurance, and what is and is not covered. There are far too many unknowns for something so important.

In reply to Kahti:



What companies? The local agencies don't have the funds. The helicopters in Pakistan are run by the army. The climbers were not with a guiding company, they were climbing in a traditional, independent small expedition. As for the insurers, it's a good question why Global Rescue can't guarantee the funds up front to get things moving - otherwise what are you paying for? - but you'd need to ask them that. Otherwise, insurers are just funders, not operators. In other insurance fields this may not matter much, but in Himalayan rescues the timeline is critical so the differences in roles are also critical.


I'm Australian. You'll have to try much harder...



As I wrote in the other post, it's time for an in-depth and independent (i.e. not scared of the BMC/Clym Briton) article asking some hard questions. Costings of the operations would be good too, to judge how much money is really needed for helo SAR in Pakistan. In Nepal the system is relatively new, with helicopters, and has been gamed by agencies to overcharge clients - often trekkers too tired to walk back, climbers too lazy to walk out - and keep a cut from what they claim from the insurer. We ALL pay for scams like this.

In reply to Damo:


From what I gathered from a post further up, the rescues are run by a private company using ex-army helicopters (Askari Aviation). I will admit I hadn't done much research on them, but they appear to be a charter company rather than specifically a SAR team. So presumably have some capital with which to play with.
Apart from this I meant the insurance companies, who definitely have the cash to front the rescue.


That i can definitely agree with, although without pressure from the people that currently use these agencies it will probably not happen.

Just as an idea (without any real thoughts on the logistics of it) could one not set up a Himalayan Mountain Rescue team, staffed by trained local people and assisted by the military (similar to our Scottish Mountain Rescue except not run off volunteers and donations). Instead of paying large amounts of money to a foreign insurance company it would be mandatory when getting permits to pay a certain amount to fund this mountain rescue, thereby providing local employment AND insuring there is always SAR available.

In reply to Kahti:


No. The people are ex-army. The helicopters are current army. They can't just use them when they want. At least that was the situation until recently, if not now.


Something like this has just started on Everest, with a Sherpa SAR team.