Mountally challenged > Crazy Plans

everest without oxygen

(1/3) > >>

i believe everest should only beattempted without oxygen as a way of reducing the risk of ill prepared and inexperienced climbers being on the hill. what do people think??

I think Everest is for every1 to try...BUT it sure would help keep the tourists away.

Its a 2 sided thing...a guy working 70-80 hours a week and with some money wants to do someting challanging. He pays a lot of money to be guided up..with oxygen offcourse...who can blame him for that.
On the other hand...i did my attemp without oxygen last spring and im convinced that there are a lot of ill prepared /unexperianced clibers on the mountain who endanger not only themselves..but also others. And climbing with oxygen makes it possible for those people to be there.

At the end of the day i cannot deny people entrance to it. The mountains are for everyone to enjoy.

That's a bad idea.   Not allowing someone to use a tool (O2 in this case) that is available to help make the climb easier or to help insure that they will safely reach the peak is ridiculous.  Why stop at O2 ... how about getting rid of the aluminum ladders in the Kumbu icefalls?  Or the fixed ropes on the Hillary Step?   If a highly experienced climber like Ed visteurs or Jim Whit. etc. etc. wants to climb without O2 as a personal goal or to add a further challenge for themselves I say more power to them, but not allowing O2 to those that want/need it won't stop less experienced or unconditioned people from attempting the summit ... it'll just increase the injuries and deaths.  My two fifths of a nickle.   

Best Regards,


fair comments. how do you believe the number of inexperienced climbers should be regulated? it is certainly a problem and one which i beieve needs addressing to minimise the number of unnecassary deaths that are occuring at present.

Its a never ending discussion on big mountains...especialy if you are an atletic and experianced climber (like me). You tend to set high standars for others too and feel that "tourists should not be there.
One tought is to set minimum standards in skill and experiance. Like having climbed Mt whitney or Mt Blanc is just by far not enough to go on Everest. To say you must have topped another 8000+ Mountain is also not realistic though. You can get a lot of experiance and skills on 6000-7000m mountains, surely enough for everest.
But were to draw the line and who's gonna draw it?

Its also a responsability of the commercial organisations on the mountain. They should set high standards for there customers and not take every weekend climber with them b/c they pay money.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version