Thoughts on thin air

Kinda out of the ordinary for me to share my personal thoughts here, unless it is about my disdain of a hike but I guess that is what a blog is for right?

In my English class, we are currently reading Jon Krakauer book "Into Thin Air". A non-fiction book about his journey up Mount Everest and the horrific events that transpired during the climb

One main factor that he touches on is the over crowding of such hikes. He even goes so far as to share some interesting facts. For instance

 

"In 1991 the Ministry of Tourism (Of Nepal) charged $2,300 for a permit that allowed a team of any size to attempt Everest. In 1992 the fee was increased to $10,00 for a team of up to nine climbers, with another $1,200 to be paid for each additional climber"

and

"And while they were at it, the government ministers jacked up the permit fee once again-this time for $70,000 for up to seven climbers, plus another $10,000 for each additional climber. Traditionalists were offended that the world's highest summit was being sold to rich parvenus-some of whom, if denied the service of guides, would probably have difficulty making it to the top of a peak as modest as Mount Rainer. Everest, the purists sniffed, had been debased and profaned".

Krakauer then goes on to talk about how some of the "rich" even go on to sue guides if they don't make it to the summit and actually win as if "a ticket was a sure ride to the top"

Krakauer makes some strong points and I surely agree with him

I first began to see this when I was on Rattlesnake Ridge.

(And I promise, this is my last time complaining)

As the small group I descended with reached the ledges overlooking Rattlesnake, one can gaze upon the lake and see the parking lot form above. The most immediate thing you notice is the amount of people that fill the parking lot, down the roads and even, from what it looked like, Infringing upon peoples private property (as in driveways, ditches etc). I didn't have much problem with this due to the fact that any trail report I had read had made it clear that this was a busy hike.

As we left the lower ledge and headed back down the easy switch backs, the situation became painfully in our face. A thin trail was being over run by trail runners, soloist, family's with and without small children, dogs and people of all shapes and sizes. This would present a problem as we traveled downwards in the fact that we'd wait any where from a single person to twenty people or even more to pass us as they trekked up. In fact, it went so far as to one of my partners quoted to say "This is a hike that people do and say 'I love hiking!"

Sigh... The complaining is done... Now onto some sense.

Let me make one thing clear. I have NO problem with people getting out and doing something. In fact it is a great thing. It was a gorgeous day in which we climbed and it was good to see people getting out but at the same time, it was a bit saddening.

Don't get me wrong the hike itself was very good. I liked the trail, the environment and the views but the people though... It was a bit overwhelming and clearly frustrating for that specific reason. There was simply to many people and once again, please don't get me wrong. It is awesome to see people get out and do something but in my opinion, hiking locations such as Rattlesnake Ridge(s), Tiger Mountain, Cougar Mountain and even Mount Si are to busy. This is the exact reason I always make it my goal to go to more "Out there" places.

Bouncing off of Krakauer's point of "the world's highest summit was being sold to rich parvenus-some of whom" and I come into some conflict here. I personally have a beef with if I am a Conversationalist or Preservationist. Both have fairly strong arguments, especially stemming from Gifford Pinchot and John Muir but that's where I am torn.

In my personal opinion, something like Everest shouldn't be sold. I mean, $70,000 for a group of seven to go? In my opinion, a sacred ground such as the summit is at 29,029 feet is absolutely something that only a select few should even be able to stand upon. For me, this stems from many reasons. It's the same thing as the Marianas Trench at the bottom of the ocean or the moon for examples. Both are wild places and in reality frontiers that man has trouble even getting to (I know people have been to both)  but in the same fashion, Everest, for many, is a place of mystical beliefs. Many locals call it the "Mother of the Heavens". For them, it is a place of worship for there religions and what they pray to. Also, lots of people are ill prepared for the challenge of Everest. The number of people who have died is a absolutely insane amount. The statistic I have most commonly found is 1 out of every 4 people die on the mountain, be it climber, guide, Sherpa what ever. These are people who have money and as Krakauer states "if denied the service of guides, would probably have difficulty making it to the top of a peak as modest as Mount Rainer" and don't get me wrong, Rainer is a challenge for a lot of people but when they can merely pay $10,000 to be apart of a expedition that takes them to a place where someone like me could barely even fathom to dream about EVER going there to even lay eyes on the mountain. In my opinion it is a ridiculous thing.

BUT I will also play devils, or in this case, hikers, advocate. In the 1920's an expedition of two British climbers attempted a summit. George Mallory and Andrew Irvine both never made it to the unsummitable mountain at the time one quote from Mallory really rings with me. During a tour around the USA, Mallory was quoted as saying "Because it is there" when a news reporter asked him why he wanted to climb Everest. For me personally and many people I know, that is the reason to why we climb. It is not because the mountain has been previously unsummited (a next to impossible feat in Washington state) or that we do it to say we did. We do it because it is there and we can. In many respects, it is a way to prove to our self's that we are capable of going out into the world and living to the extent of going into our own unknown. It is to see things we never have before, to experience danger that gets our heart going, to feel alive and to accomplish something that we feel is a mountainous task to even conceive of.

Now I know that I only have one point for hikers advocate but I feel that one point is enough to match the conflicting side.

Now is there a compromise?

Well yes and no..

At one point, the world can slap a restriction on ALL major world summits and only allow 5 people to even dare attempt them or even the opposite way where all restrictions are lifted and the mountains turn into a super high way(Lets hope not..) but I truly believe that with a little effort, we can find some type of balance between allowing people to get out and experience the world like Everest or Denali, or anything else they desire and conserving that place for the future where it will still be in a semi decent condition 1,000+ years from now.

It will take a lot to

Both sides will argue, they fight, there may even be some times in which one side isn't even willing to consider the others view BUT with a little effort, I think it is possible.

It is a tall order to save our planets resources, wonders, places of freedom and the world we want to believe is still pure and free but I think we can do it. It maybe hard but I believe and always, for my entire life, try to make this my goal. I believe in nature and I believe in man and when we can all believe in those at the same times... Something great just may happen.