UKC

From the death of Pakistani porter Mohammad Hussan on K2 as over 100 climbers filed past him to the current financial crisis at the BMC, much has happened recently in the climbing world and it all comes down to money and numbers, argues mountaineer, author and former Alpine Club President John Porter.

Read more

Well said.

Some years ago, I received some badly-targeted advertising on my Facebook feed from the Bear Grylls survival school about their 'Survive Snowdon!' course.  Whilst the focus of my subsequent rant about was on the use of our domestic environment rather than greater ranges mountaineering, I ended up at much the same point as John has in this piece.  Excitement and adventure in the most dangerous places of the world comes at a greater financial and environmental cost, but also at a potentially greater personal cost for both the purchaser and enabler.

Anyway the crux of my Facebook rant from four or so years ago is below.  I still hold the same view.

T.

"But it isn't that which grips my shit . . . what it is, is the way that 'experiencing' the hills, and the outdoors generally, is being hyped up as Big Challenges. This 'survival school', the Ben Nevis/Scafell Pike/Snowdon three peaks, the Yorkshire three peaks, amidst much else. It's all 'hey wow, look at me', all about 'conquering', 'surviving' and many other such words ending in -ing. The people who do these things probably say that they are 'awesome' and that they 'smashed it'.

For heaven's sake. What would be awesome is if they learned a bit more about respecting the environment, about not behaving like accident statistics waiting to happen, about how putting yourself under pressure to achieve something in the outdoors can come at a cost of failing to do it, and then having the respect for the environment and for other people to get yourself out of the mess you've got yourself into.

I know, I know; everyone has their own Everests and what might once have seemed routine to me may count as a lifetime achievement to someone else. I don't frown on things for that, it's just the sense that some of our most valued landscapes are being treated as a casual commodity, and that people are paying money to use them on that basis."

Very thoughtful article John.  Feels like this should have been written about more / before now.  Thank you for writing this.

I read a related article in the Guardian and few days ago on the tourism that has been carrying on in places that have recently suffered from environmental disasters, (Rhodes, Maui).  Tourists have been continuing to holiday on the beaches and swimming in the same waters that folk have just died in.  And, as the journalist puts better than me this dissonance goes to the heart of the contradiction of our modern and unsustainable lives - and that includes many of the aspects of alpinism you describe.

The article is here:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/tourists-rhodes-maui-...

Whilst I share much of John's opinion regarding high altitude mountaineering, I can't help but feel there's a bit of elitism creeping in, with sentiments such as:

"Peak bagging can become an end in itself, a joyless number-counting exercise"

It's not for us to determine what is and what is not "joyless", having seen for myself the joy and camaraderie experienced when someone competes a round of Munros,  Wainwrights, Seven Summits or whatever.

I think it's important to let everyone enjoy the outdoors and find their own connection to the mountains in their own way, when it does no harm to anyone else or prevents the rest of us finding a more spiritual connection if that is what we are looking for.

A long while back I moved away from bagging summits and instead explore the less visited areas either side like hanging corries, subsidiary ridges etc. I do the same to a certain extent in the Alps and Dolomites and bigger ranges.   Not a Tillman  I’m not treading in unmapped terrain, though tracks are few and far between and the going can often often slow if it’s technical.  But it can be delightfully quiet if you are exploring routes in and around the mountains that don’t actually lead to a summit.  It’s been liberating, once you let go of the idea of having to reach the summit of every mountain you step upon the slopes of.

As someone slowly working my way around the Munros I agree. Yes I do occasionally do a hill just because it's on the list and I do undoubtedly miss some fantastic hills because they are Corbett's, but I have made friends on my trips, it has given me a consistent destination for my holidays that gives me great joy, it has shown me some fantastic mountains that I would not have visited otherwise.

I have had a couple of cruddy days on Munros, but I reckon of the 50 or so days on the hill, only one was particularly devoid of redeeming features (Ben Teallach or the one next door on a rather horrid day where my boots started to leak.

It has also helped me get to know the Highlands as it has taken me all over and I appreciated the knowledge when I cycle toured through them a few years ago.

I think it's really about taking time to savour these places that speed challenges lose out on.

Agreed. It's not the numbers and lists that are necessarily bad, they can be a faint guideline or parameter for our desires and paths, a way to corral our joy and satisfaction with fulfilling a process. It's that they too often become the basis for claims to primacy or superiority inconsistent with the actual ability or quality of the claimant.

And herein lies the problem. Again, those lists and numbers, while not bad per se, are the metrics captured and exploited by over-commercialisation, which eventually does impact negatively on everyone else.

I'm not that keen on John's parsing of sports/games etc here either. I've seen this discussion regularly in climbing circles for years and it's clear people start with different personal definitions of what games and sport are and they're too often used either interchangeably or with too much overlap. I won't re-hash the famous Hemingway quote here, as it's not really helpful, but it hinted at something.

I think games are more trivial and more formulaic, more contrived and controlled, with less risk to life and limb. The true 'sporting' aspect of an activity leaves room for choice, judgement and restraint or flexibility, outside of rules, formulas and controls, with maybe a little danger, and in doing so, how we do something becomes more important than the 'result'. This, for me, does speak to something intrinsic to alpinism and leads me to view alpinism and mountaineering as truly a sporting activity, when enacted to its best. These intangibles add a degree of joy, satisfaction and depth of appreciation for craft and companions that cannot be measured in numbers or results.

So the speed-logistics style of Tenjin & Harila is not sporting, as it was too controlled by the 'list' aspect of all 14x8000ers, born from the aim to beat an existing speed-logistics 'record', contrived by a categorisation based solely on the metric system, and the use of helicopters polluted the great physical challenge which is meant to be an intrinsic part of such a feat. If everyone up at the Bottleneck on K2 that morning had more flexibility, some restraint, more appreciation for the craft and their companions, they might not have found it so easy to step over Hassan.

That's an excellent article. Thank you.

Si.

Indeed, hence the caveat in my post. The elephant in the room regarding outdoor pursuits is environmental impact, and just how much we're willing to look the other way. But that's on all of us, whether crossing continents to bag those 8000m summits or in search of what Porter would consider a more spiritual connection. Although I take the point that it seems less likely to figure high up the priority list if the interests are more commercial.

I do wonder if the 70 ~ 80s was the golden age mountaineering as a  'dangerous, nihilist and spiritually transcendental pastime'. From my reading that doesn't describe the whole history of mountaineering, which John acknowledges in the article. I am sure there were those climbing in that period who were motivated to be 'first', to be challenged by something not done before. So what was going to happen when most peaks had had been climbed, how could mountaineering have otherwise evolved?

I must admit when I used to climb I was altogether too obsessed with grades. I got to around 6c+ indoors, HVS outdoors, and platueaued then gave up as I couldn't see progression despite training quite a lot. In hindsight I realise I was over training and not giving myself long enough to rest between climbing. This approach also took away from my enjoyment of climbing. 

While it is nice to progress I'd be less grade orientated now, give myself long enough to rest between climbs and have a mentality that was more sustainable. It's easy to point back to the folly of youth and how damaging a certain mentality can be but my climbing grade became far too woven into my own self-esteem. Now I'm getting back into climbing but with many interests alongside and a more balanced perspective.

Nice. 
And the response is not free of irony. 

Great read. I am on a plateau of E1, 6b+, WI4, IV.5 and I need this reminder with quotes from Wojtek Kurtyka  of what is it all about. I don't think that I will ever give up climbing, regardless of what my numbers will be. Will climb stairs in nice places if this is going to be top grade one day. As for Everest et al.  - if I am not good enough to be on a leading end of a rope, I am not interested.

Having said that, I am passionate fan of IFSC sports climbing, watch competitions and support GB climbers with intensity that others reserve for football. For me it is great sport. However, I am also convinced that BMC should spin off GB Climbing in the same way as UIAA spun off IFSC. Sport is just too different from core BMC activities. If you want to "turn around" a sport and get more medals you need to look for expertise of an organization like British Cycling, rather than outdoor charity that has been brilliant for decades in negotiating access for climbers.

Great article John, all your points are spot on.

Yet another piece of hypocritical, elitist drivel

I bet he wont be giving up climbing anytime soon but every one else should do...

What I wonder about that phrase is whether the author actually understands the word "nihilist".  Firstly, it's a noun, not an adjective; the adjectival form is "nihilistic", both deriving from the root concept of nihilism.  The definitions of "nihilism" in my Concise Oxford are: "1 the rejection of all religious and moral principles. 2 an extreme form of scepticism maintaining that nothing has a real existence."  I understand that there was a perhaps significant proportion of interesting characters involved in the sport in those days who held perhaps out-of-the-ordinary spiritual and philosophical viewpoints, but I'm not sure the outright negation that "nihilism" implies would have applied to many of them.

I would suggest "countercultural" would have been a more accurate and less jarring choice of word.

A later passage in the article seems to capture the ideas much better IMO:

"The majority of the climbers in my generation could be described as outliers - rebels, nonconformists, eccentrics, bohemian dissidents, dissenters and iconoclast heretics."

In the broadest sense, it's been written about extensively (some might even say endlessly) in the past - not least by John's own mentor Ken Wilson.  Not necessarily by relating the problem to a fixation on numbers per se, but certainly as a criticism of over-obsession on specific goals and progress vs the experience and enjoyment of simply doing the activity, and the commercialism that is enabled by such attitudes.

I'm not really sure what the point of this article is other than to have a moan and apparently naively pretend that the history of mountaineering isn't rooted in competition. 

The term 'nihilst' struck me as odd too. Often 'anarchic' is an adjective used in similar situations, which is likewise probably not literally true, but conveys the sense of rejecting authority and conventions of the time.

In the same vein, it was recently the birthday of Brummie Stokes, who climbed Everest via the South Col in 1976 and such things are commemorated in a Facebook group I follow. I noted there that although this was only the second lot of Britons to climb Everest, and the first ever by that route, it only warranted three lines in the 1977 Alpine Journal. It was obviously not considered significant, in climbing terms. Times change...

I think so but I didn't want to get into it so just used quotation marks. On the whole I think the article is a valuable opinion piece,  the perspective of a prolific mountaineer of the last 'era' (not just 'era' in climbing but pre-globalisation 3, internet ect).

A few brief notes only...

The element missing from this moan (sorry!) is a class analysis, which would turn it from a "why is everything changing?!" piece of nostalgic romanticism into a more nuanced argument. As it is, you have to wonder why the fantastic achievements of Janja Garnbret are lumped into the same category as the ultra-wealthy failing to give a damn about a young man dying on the mountainside and the poor governance of the BMC via the dubious trope of "numbers". As it is, I would dispute the comments of others that this is "very thoughtful"... 

"The majority of the climbers in my generation could be described as outliers - rebels, nonconformists, eccentrics, bohemian dissidents, dissenters and iconoclast heretics." 

Yes, they have frequently be described that way - to the point of cliche. They could also be described as mostly comprising middle-class white men. I don't say that to cast aspersions or to diminish their achievements, but to point out that not everything is getting worse - and some of those pesky "numbers" represent the significant diversification of the mountaineering and climbing world.

As for climate change - definitely it should focus out minds, but I'm struggling to see how and why you feel that "alpinism" is part of the solution... I appreciate the philosophy of self-sufficiency... but, flying from the UK to France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany - nevermind flying to the greater ranges - to practise it has never been the radical move you depict. Rather, it has tended to be the holiday activity of a professional class with time and income to burn.

I identify a lot with your Romanticism, but let's not mistake it for analysis...

Have to say, I wasn't really sure what the point being made was in that article, or what they were arguing for. Going on holiday, for many, is not just about ticking off bucket lists, but the whole experience. It's enjoyable, and brings in a lot of essential revenue for the locals.

Yes, grades are a handy measure of one's personal level of ability, but they are just that, a representation. The main thing is the experience, and changing the grade of a route does not affect how hard it is!

Indeed, not very thoughtful, not analysis, not novel; a word pile that throws no light on anything. As stated above Ken Wilson did a lot of it sooner and better. I find it hard to believe that he'd let this sort of cruft get into print - his work was humorous, insightful and provocative. 

I suppose I'd have hoped that someone publishing under the advertisement of former AC President and author might offer something more worthwhile. Disappointing. 

So much more that could be said. Yes - the climbing that was still just about countercultural when I started on a Uni wall has transitioned to a commercial commodity (anyone for a NICAS award ?) But I doubt this guy would have the first idea what Belinda Kirk's ideas are or why they matter, just for one tiny aspect of the future of it. 

Y

Tell us.

Let me google that for you.

And/or suggest you have a listen to Matt Pycroft on the Adventure Podcast - I think you'll find BK there. No, it's not all climbing. Some of it's expedition, some of it's even in flat places. 

In fact, I was noodling "I could do better than that - so maybe I should" but the point is - he was President of the Alpine Club and "author" and has a platform. I've had a few mountain books chapters published but in truth I'm just another punter quietly getting it done, and doing some giving back. Maybe I will attempt to do better than he did, maybe I'll keep to kids with contour lines and top ropes for now. Got some of them in twenty minutes, so long...

Y

In the interests of pedantry and in defence of John's grammar, I'd like to point out that one can find nihilist listed as an adjective in certain dictionaries. Checkout the venerable Merriam-Webster for starters. It may be a more American usage, but it's perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. But that avoids the possibility that it can become a joyless number-counting exercise. I certainly take your point about someone compleating their Munros.  But someone who is just trying to tick the Munros in the shortest possible time in order to set a record?

Yes, what will stay with me is classic routes in the peak like Hargreave's original, narrowly failing on congo corner, 3 pebble slab (yes that one ha), Tody's wall, Sunset slab, among other classics. I also enjoyed a lot of indoor climbing, particularly bouldering in good company.

Thanks John Porter - I have felt this way for some time.  An event near me recently advertised a TV 'adventurer' who was due to talk about 'The Challenge of Everest'. I wanted to go and ask some awkward questions rather than feign admiration: 'but you're not actually a mountaineer are you'? etc - but I refused to pay the event fee out of principal! But there are things we can do. After completing a ML training course in Wasdale and hearing about how 3-peakers contribute so badly, I always try to dissuade anyone who asks me about this 24hr 'challenge' and suggest alternative ways to do it. When I see adverts for MLs or trainees to assist in the challenge I send messages asking how the organisers will reduce their environmental impact and ensure no waste is left - to include human waste. Funny how I have never received a reply to these messages! But maybe it makes people think. So a final point - come on BMC - be more vocal and shape our human thinking on this subject - it's what we pay you for! Steve Richards 

You might find this interesting - it came out of a BMC conference on exactly this, which included some of the charities that organise these things and the agents that coordinate them, as well as National Trust and others who have to deal with the impact.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-green-guide-challenge-events-hills

Thank you  - had not seen that before.

I don’t think the author is saying anything groundbreaking. This article could have been written 25+ years ago. The trends have strengthened but they aren’t new. The first 7 Summits was done in the mid 80s I think and it’s been a thing since then.

“It could be said that we mountaineers who have written books, given lectures and appeared at festivals are hypocrites since we are all complicit in the chain of history that has led to where we are today.” The author acknowledges this but doesn’t engage with this debate or say whether he agrees with the statement. Now that would be interesting to read.

I also think that claiming that alpinism isn’t a sport doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Alpinism has grades, at least these days. Some people seek to do speed ascents. Some people compete with others for summits. Most alpinists are happy to climb for themselves but even then most people will look to climb harder / longer / more serious routes. They may be competing with themselves but that’s still sport. Same as other types of climbing and other sports where you take part alone or in a team but without directly competing with another team. Is parapente a sport? Caving? Diving? Mountain biking? If not, what are they?

One could define sport as competitive, with winners and losers. Competing with one's self is a nice phrase but ultimately just means pushing your own personal limits; it's not really competition.    

"Is parapente a sport? Caving? Diving? Mountain biking? If not, what are they?"

Outdoor activities.

Most dictionaries follow the wikipedia definition these days:

"Sport pertains to any form of physical activity or game, often competitive and organized, that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators."

By that definition if I cycle to the shops I'm doing sport. Using physical ability and skills. The definition is so broad it's meaningless.

It might depend how you cycled to the shop: for me, given modern road traffic that might involve more risk than most of my trad leads (and I can ride Unicycles). Climbing is still nearly always a sport (when participation has challenge), always an activity and is also a series of distinct games with rules; and I think anyone claiming otherwise is a foolish pedant, given English Language definitions change based on usage and it would be so in most modern dictionary terms.

So you're saying cycling is sometimes a sport, which I'd agree with. Just like walking, or even driving a car. All activities that some people make into a sport. But you're saying climbing is always a sport? Why?

Thinking about how I'd use the word, I think that for me one necessary feature of a sport is a certain seriousness of approach - a willingness to commit sustained effort to doing better, basically. So I'd see climbing happily within your grade and enjoying the scenery to be recreation whereas regularly pushing yourself at or near your limit makes it a sport, whether you're trying to beat someone in a competition or not. Similarly, to me cycling is a sport if the cyclist is seriously concerned with trying to go further and faster rather than just pootling along enjoying themself.

I'm not saying  'climbing' is always a sport,  but mostly it is and independent trad climbing and mountaineering always is, given the hazards involved and the skills required to deal with those.

It fits the formal definition in respect of "... aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants....."

I see no mention of elitism in the definitions of the word. The key to me is choice to enjoy an activity that requires skills.

It's really interesting how people see the word "sport". To me I think it implies some sort of organisation and, possibly secondarily, competition, both of which are anathema to me in the broad ethos of climbing. I know a sport when I do or see it and climbing just doesn't fit as far as I am concerned whatever the official definition is! But I don't know what word does best encompass climbing and mountaineering along with other activities such as caving, kayaking, sailing etc which don't look like sports to me.

Interestingly those are the areas of climbing which I would see as furthest from being a sport!

Sport climbing and indoor climbing possibly, competition climbing definitely.

I agree with Dave and Robert, their definition is useful and agrees with how I view the activities.

So does me cycling to the shops, which leads me to think it's a poor definition.

The following comes from the same Wikipedia page you referenced earlier - the first of the GAISF criteria would seem to exclude climbing outside a competitive environment:

"The precise definition of what differentiates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by the Global Association of International Sports Federations(GAISF), which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports, and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.

GAISF uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:

. have an element of competition

. be in no way harmful to any living creature

. not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)

. not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport."

That section reminds me of the French trying to ban English words. You can't change general usage and that exists for Climbing and the general definition in new dictionaries of a sport.

Also knitting.

Of course you do as the definition in your head doesn't match that in new dictionaries.

And sex too.

So sex is a sport by Offwidth's definition. Woo hoo! Can I join a team or something?

Oh dear!

We (as a whole) are sinking lower and lower if Wikipedia is being considered as a definitive source of knowledge, information, definitions etc.

I wonder if the dictionary definition matches what is in most peoples' heads. 

It's all very well to claim these "sporty" aspects, but when you are committed on an alpine route and the shit hits the fan, I think it feels very far removed indeed from all sportiness; to bracket it with table tennis makes the term "sport" all but meaningless. Nothing wrong with table tennis of course.

Not in my book unless done, like climbing, competitively.

Good question. As I said, In think a suitable term is lacking.

Pastime

It's just the easiest to access and copy with acknowledgement. Just check other online dictionaries.

You may appreciate this gem from XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/940/

Which is obviously completely stupid, there are plenty of one-make series in motorsport for example and even the Olympics have single supplier rules.

That would rule out anything involving the use of guns to kill animals and birds, though the term "sport" is still widely applied to such activities.  (FWIW I wouldn't classify such activities as "sports" either, but the term is widely used amongst those who participate in and support them.)

I think the GAISF has created a definition that suits its own purpose - particularly by deliberately ruling out blood sports, but which may not be universally recognised or applicable.

I wonder if boxing might fall foul of that criterion?  It doesn't say anything about whether the risk of harm is voluntarily accepted.

Care to share your PB?

Sub five seconds!

But that is even more vague (actually a lot more vague) than Offwidth's definition of a sport. A pastime could be virtually anything. I think I am looking for an acceptable term for what some might call "adventure sports" (without involving either of those grating words.

Speed solo I can do under 10 seconds.

What exactly stops your search to describe your experience within the overlapping descriptions that exist? Sport, activity, game and pastime are correctly wide as English is defined by common usage but because of that width they are pretty mundane descriptions. Yet nothing stops people using other words to describe what they get out of climbing. I'm sure we could quickly generate hundreds of single words on the good and bad in climbing, on a dedicated thread. That's what pisses me off about pedants who argue with dictionary definitions: the definition doesn't subtract but pedants often close down the wonderful possibilities of our language.

Climbing can be an art, beauty, calling, dedication, excitement, fancy, greatness, hazard, idiocy, joy, killer, longing, motivation, necessity, obligation, passion, skill, test, urge, verve, weakness, xxx, yearning, zeal.

We're talking single/dual word terms, not everything under the sun. I like 'outdoor activity' as it removes connotations of competition or 'sport'. I also like 'game' as it brings out the playful element; it's just a serious game.

I have followed this thread with interest as it twists, turns and segues. Some of the observations in the article resonate with me, as do some of the following comments. 

    I would like to humbly suggest a different perspective, one that is touched on in the article and in some of the responses:

    Rather than thinking of climbing as a 'sport' or indeed as any one thing, I see it more as what the individual chooses to do within the climbing umbrella and how they approach it. For example some approach it as:

Gymnastics, competition with others, escape, being in touch with nature, competition with self, self improvement, psychological well being,healthy exercise, opportunity to face risk, a way to gain spiritual or contemplative benefits, being in wonderful landscapes, a way to do things with others, a way to be solo, an anarchic pursuit, a way to be admired by others, a way to make money, a way to escape a political group or thinking, a way to conform, a way to share their joy with others, a way to escape poverty and much much more. 

I suspect that for many climbers it can be a mix of many or all these things, sometimes the emphasis or priority will shift. So I would suggest climbing is not one thing, but it is the person's approach at that moment in time that decides what it is for them. 

I know for some people using or completing lists, grades or numbers is what is important for them. Personally this is not for me, ( most of the time ) but I'm not sure this makes people who choose to 'bag' 8,000 metre peaks wrong or undesirable ( or for that matter that my approach is right or better ). They are just taking the aspect of climbing that perhaps best fits their attitudes, values, personality.

Having said all of that, I personally think that the attitude, values or personality of someone who chooses not to help someone in distress or dying ( in whatever way they can ) in pursuit of a personal objective is despicable behaviour.

There are only three sports and climbing (or rather mountaineering) is one of them

Outdoor activity is ok for outdoor climbing I suppose, but then what do you call indoor climbing?

Pastime to my mind is something sedentary like tiddlywinks or painting.

Passion and suchlike could be applied to anything and is therefore pretty meaningless.

I think this thread shows there probably isn't a single term that captures outdoor climbing. The more archaic definitions of sport are close, but as you point out it's meaning is broader now so confusion results.

Although maybe we can say that whatever "it" is, "it" is lost when packaged up for consumption by the payment of cash.

Sport is defined at an individual level, and an activity usually becomes a sport when you apply some sort of structured training to improve, often joining a group of others, like say a running club, otherwise it’s a hobby or pastime. Like everything else, it’s nuanced.

Full English brekkie and a day of Severes at Stanage popular end is a wonderful pastime, but structured training (of whatever kind) to improve your grades (in trad, sport and bouldering) turns it into a sport, even more so when we consider the (mostly) friendly rivalry which has always existed indoors and out. If there are quantifiable objective improvements in your activities, then it’s probably a sport.

I’ve always had a day job, but have played hundreds of gigs as a semi pro musician since I was a teenager. Again, there’s a dividing line between the wonderful pastime of noodling around on an instrument, and being a musician. Again, it mostly centres around structured practice, focusing on weaknesses, very much like good climbing training, with tangible objectives.

You really can't define this with climbing grades. Age, disability etc will always blur the edges. There is no transition point, just a gradual grey area.

Some of those noodling around will be musician's you just insulted as well. We have a fantastic language to highlight nuance so why on earth would anyone try and steamroller definitions unless they have an agenda.

I'd add many noodle about on more conventionally regarded sporting activities, often competitively.

I never mentioned grades except as a minor lighthearted illustration. Never mentioned a transition point, it’s all nuanced about attitude and intent. I hope no one is ‘insulted’ by having noodling around described as a ‘wonderful pastime’. I know I’ve done my fair share of it and love it.

To add to John's article, I was leading a trek over the Hispar La in Pakistan this year and another trekking group run by Lela Peak Expeditions had a near miss that could have resulted is the loss of 30 people due to the inexperience of the guide assigned to be the leader.  As mentioned in John's article, Lela Peak Expeditions seems to be the same company that assigned an inexperienced Mohammad Hassan to be a high altitude worker on K2 and perished.  On our trek, the Lela Peak Expeditions group was a day ahead of us going over the Hispar La.  After we crossed the pass, we encountered their camp from the previous night that had been placed at the base of a slope exposed to huge serac fall.  During the night a very large piece of the serac had calved off and the ice avalanche and wind blast destroyed their camp.  We found the remnants of tents, mangled stoves, and blue barrels scattered over the glacier with no one around and thought the 30 person group was buried under the debris. Given the depth and extent of the avalanche and the danger of being exposed to more serac fall, we were not able to mount an effective search. We called on our satellite phone for assistance, and thought a rescue might come to look in the morning but no helicopters showed up.  Our porters gathered to say prayers the next morning for their friends and relatives working for the Lela Peak trek that they thought had been buried.  A few days later after we travelled further down the Hispar Glacier we got within cell phone range and received word that all the members of the Lela Peak Expeditions trek had miraculously escaped the avalanche and trekked the 50km to the village of Hispar with probably little food or equipment.  We were greatly relieved to hear this, but dismayed that a trekking company would assign such a very young inexperienced head guide to a trek of this difficulty.  There needs to be better regulation of the adventure tour companies to protect the public as well as a high quality accredited training center for the mountain workers in Pakistan.  As John points out these activities are becoming more popular and the Gilgit Baltistan Commission can partner with the international community to implement best management practices that have been effective in other places.