richard
Member
https://www.foxnews.com/world/mount-everest-climbers-new-rules-deadly-climbing-season It’s about time. It should save some lives.
New rules if you want to climb Everest.
- Thread starter richard
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Salty
Active member
Call me cynical.
1) They apparently proposed something similar last year (no solo climbs, have to have summited a 7000m peak). Seeing as this is a proposal (as was that...), I'm not getting my hopes up.
2) IF (big if) the deal is you still need to apply for your Everest permit well ahead of time, AND the Nepalese government does not pull some malarkey such as "if you complete the 6500m hike, then this Everest permit we're going to give you at the same time will be valid." That will solve nothing, as outfitters will simply take you up an easier 6500m peak in the region, and then whisk you up to base camp.
3) I've seen differing versions of the wording in news reports, but several give the gist that EACH climber must their own Sherpa. IF that's true, ummm, not helping with the crowding, but maybe it's more about getting additional work available for the Sherpas.
4) Likewise with the reports, I've seen a couple that say that the 6500m qualifier must be in Nepal. More fees for the government, and that would work well in relation to point 2, with one stop shopping.
Another thing I don't like is "no solo climbs, period." Sorry, but there should be exceptions for the exceptional (e.g., Messner, Steck) to do the exceptional. They know and accept the risks probably more than most people on the mountains.
Normally I like to go to the source documentation for such things, but the government website doesn't seem to be much help, and I'm sure it's is written in their language, not ours. I'll be curious to see how this all shakes out.
1) They apparently proposed something similar last year (no solo climbs, have to have summited a 7000m peak). Seeing as this is a proposal (as was that...), I'm not getting my hopes up.
2) IF (big if) the deal is you still need to apply for your Everest permit well ahead of time, AND the Nepalese government does not pull some malarkey such as "if you complete the 6500m hike, then this Everest permit we're going to give you at the same time will be valid." That will solve nothing, as outfitters will simply take you up an easier 6500m peak in the region, and then whisk you up to base camp.
3) I've seen differing versions of the wording in news reports, but several give the gist that EACH climber must their own Sherpa. IF that's true, ummm, not helping with the crowding, but maybe it's more about getting additional work available for the Sherpas.
4) Likewise with the reports, I've seen a couple that say that the 6500m qualifier must be in Nepal. More fees for the government, and that would work well in relation to point 2, with one stop shopping.
Another thing I don't like is "no solo climbs, period." Sorry, but there should be exceptions for the exceptional (e.g., Messner, Steck) to do the exceptional. They know and accept the risks probably more than most people on the mountains.
Normally I like to go to the source documentation for such things, but the government website doesn't seem to be much help, and I'm sure it's is written in their language, not ours. I'll be curious to see how this all shakes out.
Last edited by a moderator:
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 160
I think this actually is a promising step forward, if it actually gets implemented. I hope it does!
Of course the new policy is a healthy mixture of "mountain safety" and "making money for Nepal." Nepal is an impoverished country, and the Sherpa people are poor and hard-working. I don't begrudge them squeezing any pennies they can out of comparatively very wealthy people who CHOOSE to vacation in their country. Obviously the cost is nowhere near high enough yet to reduce the demand, so this is just good business sense.
The two parts of the policy I see as mostly financial are the "Nepali Guide" provision and the "Insurance" provision. To me, these make perfect sense. These kinds of policies exist in many places, even in the United States.
The parts of the policy that I see as mostly safety related are the Certificate of Good Health, the "Prior Experience at 6500m", and the "Proper Training" provisions. These also make perfect sense to me, but I am curious about the last one. The Health Certificate and the Prior Experience are pretty clearly defined, but I wonder what will be considered as "Proper Training."
Of course the new policy is a healthy mixture of "mountain safety" and "making money for Nepal." Nepal is an impoverished country, and the Sherpa people are poor and hard-working. I don't begrudge them squeezing any pennies they can out of comparatively very wealthy people who CHOOSE to vacation in their country. Obviously the cost is nowhere near high enough yet to reduce the demand, so this is just good business sense.
The two parts of the policy I see as mostly financial are the "Nepali Guide" provision and the "Insurance" provision. To me, these make perfect sense. These kinds of policies exist in many places, even in the United States.
The parts of the policy that I see as mostly safety related are the Certificate of Good Health, the "Prior Experience at 6500m", and the "Proper Training" provisions. These also make perfect sense to me, but I am curious about the last one. The Health Certificate and the Prior Experience are pretty clearly defined, but I wonder what will be considered as "Proper Training."
Last edited by a moderator:
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 160
I'm glad this topic is back. I can't remember everything I wrote last time.
I thought the rules made sense, and I hope they are implemented.
The one question I had was what will constitute "proper training" for climbers? Everything else is clear cut.
I thought the rules made sense, and I hope they are implemented.
The one question I had was what will constitute "proper training" for climbers? Everything else is clear cut.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 160
Thanks! I'm glad the computers remember!
![Yellowstone National Park [Map Pack Bundle] (National Geographic Trails Illustrated Map)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51kGuJ72qjL._SL500_.jpg)
![Grand Teton Day Hikes and National Park Map [Map Pack Bundle] (National Geographic Trails Illustrated Map)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41DB0jvRnbL._SL500_.jpg)
![Grand Canyon, North and South Rims [Grand Canyon National Park] (National Geographic Trails Illustrated Map)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/419Y-ycyVUL._SL500_.jpg)
Salty
Active member
Likewise, thank you Tim for the resurrection. 
I believe we're in complete agreement on the state of Nepal and of the Sherpa. My problem with the government is the attitude of getting every buck possible is exactly a part of the problem, with no restrictions on the number of permits. I also wonder just how big the pool of high-altitude Sherpa guides is, if what I'm reading is correct.
IF this gets enacted, and IF this cuts down on the people (especially unqualified ones) climbing Everest, it'll be a good first step.
I believe we're in complete agreement on the state of Nepal and of the Sherpa. My problem with the government is the attitude of getting every buck possible is exactly a part of the problem, with no restrictions on the number of permits. I also wonder just how big the pool of high-altitude Sherpa guides is, if what I'm reading is correct.
IF this gets enacted, and IF this cuts down on the people (especially unqualified ones) climbing Everest, it'll be a good first step.
Similar threads
- Locked
